To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 12281
12280  |  12282
Subject: 
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:14:20 GMT
Viewed: 
808 times
  
In lugnet.general, Paul Sinasohn wrote:

   And what happens when you analyze this sentence:

I was trying to finish it, but the earthquake smashed the bricks.

One of the 7 words is in that sentence, with a space in the middle of it, so you

I see your point, but I would not want to filter this one, for obvious reasons.

  
It would take a huge amount of processing power to analyze the text of every single post. THat’s why human brains do it here, not computers.


You don’t need a foolproof language filter, nor can it be made 100% foolproof either, IMHO. When you take out the ‘foolproof’ requirement, this sort of filter becomes quite easy.

   can’t use a wildcard for pattern recognition. And what if you miss a form of the word (such as the “miniF$#$%%” in the original post) when you try to compile a ‘complete’ list of unacceptable words?


(Begin technical speak - I am a web developer)

I know for sure PHP (my favorite web app platform) can do it with a simple substitution:


$filtered_posting = str_replace($dirty_words, "&!@#^!%",  $unfiltered_posting);


Where $dirty_words is a list of known dirty words to filter out.

(End technical speak)

Whatever lugnet uses, something similar could be whipped up for sure. And it doesn’t take that much processing power for something like this, even when doing it on the fly for those who want things sanitized.

I believe this is the level being achieved by Everquest’s filter that Dave mentioned.

And it can still be easily turned off.

And it is enough for the masses.

Sure you won’t catch intentionally obfuscated nasty words, but there is still the human defense, no?

   Though I don’t know if it is technially possible, a better way to handle these situations would be to grant the original poster access to the message somehow, even if after the fact.


I would agree with you on this one. Let them cancel their posts.

Keith

PS. This is a nice break from posting in .technic all the time. :-P



1 Message in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR