Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

What kind of tagging system would be appropriate for DC?

<< < (31/32) > >>

Carol Haynes:
Don't know how well it works but here is one:

http://totaldepravity.gilbertsrus.com/2007/01/iparent_profanity_filter.html

and here is one mentioned previously by Mouser

https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=11814.msg96214

app103:
I think we all should try to bring as much good out of this unfortunate situation as possible...for ourselves personally, for the community, and for the rest of the world.

I think the simplest idea (if anyone actually wants it) is to have an optional filter that users can manually enable that simply prints all expletives when viewing posts with either a row of **** or an icon such as
--- End quote ---


i like that idea.. but i'd like to suggest that the even simpler and better solution is to do this via a firefox plugin.
that way users can choose for themselves which words they dont like, and can have it applied to any site they visit, not just dc.
-mouser (January 15, 2008, 05:26 AM)
--- End quote ---

Like I said in the IRC channel yesterday, I will be attempting to do something like this for IE as my next project. I have quite a few ideas for it. It won't be like a traditional filter used to protect children. This will be made with adults in mind and will give them a lot more control over what they see.

If someone would like to make one for Firefox that will match it, I am available to discuss ideas with. It would be nice to be able to offer them together and have them match as close as possible in features. That way there would be support for both FF & IE and not just one browser.

I am still working on my deskbar, and I still have much to learn about COM & ActiveX and programming for IE before I will be able to do this, but a lot of what I am learning with the deskbar project will be useful for the page filtering BHO/toolbar project. They have a lot in common, code-wise.

I am not sure exactly when I will be able to start work on this project or how long it will take me to complete it once I do begin. I am not even sure if this is something I will be able to do at all.

All I can promise is that I will try.

f0dder:
Carol and mouser,

I think both of you missed my point; I wouldn't want to force a swear-filter over anyone's head, and it should definitely be an opt-in for registered members. But for unregistered lurkers, I think it would be a good idea to enable the swear filter by default, to avoid displeasing webspiders trawling through the internet to find evil morally deficit sites to block/filter.

A firefox extension obviously wouldn't be very useful for that :), and for the poor people working at restrictive places where cursing could be a problem, computers might be so locked down that you can't even install a firefox extension (and you'd probably be lucky to have firefox at all).

wraith808:
The only problem with the firefox plugin is that it wouldn't stop the spiders that add DC to filter lists blindliy, nor would it stop so-called 'intelligent' filters, since the text gets through before the browser filters it, making it only useful if such things do offend, which isn't what I was suggesting at all.  But truthfully, whatever is decided is fine... I just read and participate when I can, and don't when I can't. /me shrugs

Others may feel differently, but it seems that noone else is speaking up, and I'm not prone to push my case over any others... just wanted you to be aware that there are other reasons to do so...

tinjaw:
A browser-side solution would also not solve the problem of setting off corporate proxy servers that check content for compliance with corporate policy. You might be able to "safely surf" playboy.com with a browser-side filter, but it still is going to get you into hot water at work.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page