ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

What kind of tagging system would be appropriate for DC?

<< < (9/32) > >>

I don't like the direction this is going.

It's sounding more and more like censorship and filtering out "bad stuff" (eyes of the beholder etc.) than designing a general-purpose tagging system. I'm all for a general tagging system, but not this.


I understand your concern and I believe you my be feeling that way because you haven't seen "the big picture" yet.

1) This is only the portion of the automated means of classifying.
2) This mode of operations will NOT be the default. People will have to purposefully go to their profile and ask for the various filtering to be turned on.
3) Nothing is being censored. All content will remain in its original form, and if you, as the reader/poster chose to do nothing differently from the way you do things now, you will see no change to the forums.
4) There will be further posting by me describing how I picture voluntary tagging, by the author/contributer/poster to work.

Please understand I am 100% against censorship. I am 100% for privacy. I am a Libertarian. Rest assured all of these things will be strictly voluntary and be turned off by default.

Personally I would rather we had greater participation and that our (very good, frankly) information gets to more readers. The people throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Added: Please also understand that I am just starting the discussion. I am not one to sit in the back and wait until the end to throw out my opinions. You know that.  :P And, these are also only my personal initial suggestions. I'm sure I will mold and change them as the discussion happens. That is my intent. Remember I like "Try, Then Modify".

Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.

Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.
-f0dder (January 10, 2008, 07:13 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't see why, it is a strictly voluntary matter, which will effect you in the least possible manner I can imagine. i.e. if somebody clicks on your profiles they will get a message that you don't have a Content Pledge. They will still get everyone of your posts, unless *they* decide to filter you out personally. No different than somebody choosing to use the filter by username plugin.

Again, I welcome discussion.

Added: I don't see this turning into a  McCarthy-style witch hunt, with loyalty oaths and such. And if it does, it fails as an experiment and we rip it out.

Carol Haynes:
Well, parts of your ideas are okay, but I reaaaaally dislike the "Content Pledge" idea. Gives me the creeps, to be honest.
-f0dder (January 10, 2008, 07:13 AM)
--- End quote ---

Can't remember what it said now but I think the original sign up agreement includes stuff like that. Even if people do sign up to such a thing how many people read it or think about it afterwards.

Personally I agree with fOdder on the 'content pledge' bit - I think that we should all behave in a civilised manner towards each other (and do so pretty much on DC 99.9% of the time - the other 0.1% being spam that most people never see) without having to sign up to a contract to be well behaved (even voluntarily). If for some reason there is a problem or perceived problem I think the 'reported post' or emailing Mouser or a moderator (such as me) has seemed to work pretty well in the past and situations can be resolved.

The whole tagging thing could be really usful (esp. if you can search on tags too) and maybe there is a little room in there for a 'not for the squeemish' type tag with an opt in filter in the user profile.

Personally I quite like the idea of a bad language filter - I wouldn't use it myself (being of good Anglo Saxon stock where four letter words have been in common use for well over 1000 years)  but there are a lot of people who don't like the use of expletives and find them offensive. Again it could be an opt in function within the user profile and replacing 'naughty' words with **** seems a pretty straight forward way to protect people's sensibilities from such content. There is such a filter included within SMF forums where unacceptable words can be filtered but if enabled it seems to be global - maybe there is a way to make it a user option.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version