Bad Word Filter

I'm perfectly happy with the bad words filter, Moo Poo and all , on this site but I saw this on another site and quite liked it so just reporting back in case of any passing interest ...



I presume they have set up the bad-word filter to either replace the whole word with "[CensoredTag]" or left part to indicate original usage - as in "b[CensoredTag]ks" - and then they let the Smileys take care of the [CensoredTag] bit. This probably occurs all over the internet, if so apologies but its the first time I've seen it

Link to image:

 

Not sure I'm keen on that Kristen. If we have any particularly foul mouthed members can you imagine what a nightmare the posts are going to look like, it will also interrupt the flow when reading.

 

So for foul mouthed members it would be OK, but not for particularly foul mouthed members?

 

Some of the variation used here make reading very difficult for me, as a dyslexic, in particular because it is not obvious that they have been substituted, and even more so on the odd occasions when they have substituted innocuously.

 

I think we do have at least one young member. I don't think we could expose them to that.

 

Must admit it would be nice to know when certain words have been edited, at the moment it just edits without us knowing, I think.

 

I've got a list, but if I showed you it would get edited

 

But how would we know?

 

TreeTreeTree

 

Sorry, not sure what you mean? Either way any words in the Bad Word List are replaced with something - either a similar but innocuous word (as at present) or, as per the example I gave, something that visibly indicates that the word has been censored.

I agree, it would help me a lot if there was a different colour. I wonder if it is possible to put Colour and/or Italic tags as the replacement word, and if it would colour-up on display?

e.g.
[COLOR=#ff00ff][I]XXX[/I][/COLOR]

 

Or post the list of just the substituted words, I'm sure there could be some members naughty enough to guess what they're being used to replace.

 

On the one hand ... I think 'young' members could teach us a "translation" (or three) of our "old fashioned" profanities
Of course we *could* expose them to that - they choose to visit; the question is, *should* we?
I do believe (correct me if I am wrong), that part of the terms and conditions of using this forum is that the use of profanities is barred? Which, if that is the case, means that there isn't a requirement to alert people of their posts being edited of such language as the style of language should not be used in the first place?

And, if a post is edited to exclude a word which is deemed a breach by the team .. why draw attention to it by pointing out it had been edited?

@Kristen: that is an interesting example of censorship - but, the brain will always fill in the blanks So, not much of a filter in reality, because I can see precisely what the words being censored were intended to be. So ...

... should I be "less" offended simply because they have put a smilie in it's stead: despite the fact the first and last letter are apparent and it doesn't take a great deal of effort to decipher the intended word?

Or, should I be *more* offended at the slovenly attempt to disguise it?

For example: to *me* replacing a particular word with "moo poo" ... makes me laugh!
In your example: replacing a particular word with Ste (when it is still very clear the intended expression!) is far less tasteful than "moo poo"!

Moo poo does not make my tummy churn - it makes my tummy tickle with a chuckle.
Ste - on the other hand (brain engaged!) - makes me feel ...

In a nutshell: I would prefer GC moo poo to your example of ste any day

 

I have difficult reading Moo Poo (well, not that one, but others where I don't know that it has been substituted).

Off course you don't have to have "Ste" as the substitute, it could just be "" (which I think would be better).

Better still would be to disallow the post until it was cleaned up, but I suspect that people then just work around it - "Sh1te" or whatever - rather than towing the line.

When I read the comments on YouTube and every other one is F-this and F-that I do wonder why folk think that is acceptable, or necessary. There are other adjectives (and nouns, verbs, and adverbs!!) available of course. Whilst I am not prissy about profanity I struggle to understand why people find it necessary to use it in the written form in a public "place"

 

I see two (separate) arguments here:

1) Understanding/degree of substitutes for profanities
2) the usage of profanity: per se!

And a 3rd argument, presented by Lea: age appropriate.

In the first instance: the dictionary does explain (rather well) what is deemed "profanity" (for those who still use such old fashioned devices
In the second instance: that is down to the ethics of a) the user (first and foremost); b) the website (permissions? monitoring? capturing) and then, an added element you have drawn into the equation: the understanding/interpretation/context/deciphering of the reader.
In Lea's example, it encompasses the whole (new?) concept of a forum being a 24/7 conduit of access/information where there isn't (and cannot be) a time-relevant cut off point for acceptance/offensive/"adult acceptable/established" content.

= minefield