Poll of the Day > So why do user tags have to be censored?

Topic List
Page List: 1
Xeowulf
08/01/17 10:10:18 AM
#1:


I mean, you're the only one who can see what you've tagged someone as, right? Why can't you use an uncensored tag?
---
The Necromancer is worth $15.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe
08/01/17 10:50:23 AM
#2:


Because when the hacked list goes public, the little kids can read your uncensored words and turn into killers.

Or if you want a serious answer, CBS want to cover their asses just in case. And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist, which might glitch so nothing gets censored, and we are back at covering asses.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
... Copied to Clipboard!
Johnny Eagle
08/01/17 10:51:11 AM
#3:


Because GameFAQs is stupid like that
---
"Life's a game. It's meant to be played."
"Amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic."
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
08/01/17 11:07:55 AM
#4:


Foppe posted...
And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist


That's the big thing. There's really no point in specifically designing such a small part to be different from the rest of the boards.
---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Xeowulf
08/01/17 11:36:19 AM
#5:


adjl posted...
Foppe posted...
And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist


That's the big thing. There's really no point in specifically designing such a small part to be different from the rest of the boards.

That makes sense.
---
The Necromancer is worth $15.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 11:39:56 AM
#6:


Foppe posted...
And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist

That's exactly not how it works.

You put more effort in to apply censorship filtering to every little thing.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe
08/01/17 2:52:52 PM
#7:


Yellow posted...
Foppe posted...
And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist

That's exactly not how it works.

You put more effort in to apply censorship filtering to every little thing.


You have a filter that already cover the whole site, and if you got any skills then it is the default thing that cover anything you add.
Adding something that wont use the filter requires you do make a whitelist, not to add it to the filter.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 8:11:26 PM
#8:


Foppe posted...
You have a filter that already cover the whole site, and if you got any skills then it is the default thing that cover anything you add.
Adding something that wont use the filter requires you do make a whitelist, not to add it to the filter.

Why do you figure they do that? Every bit of text shown on the site? Now I might not have done much HTML, but that seems incredibly inefficient.

They don't even let you enter cuss words into the tagging box, that really has nothing to do with any "filter that covers the whole site".
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
helly
08/01/17 8:14:03 PM
#9:


you still have to censor your signature, too.

that's probably the dumbest of them all. just have the built in auto censor effect that, too.
---
killin' darth vader
with my mother****in' kick drum
... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25
08/01/17 8:30:19 PM
#10:


YWa4t4i
---
One who knows nothing can understand nothing.
http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - http://i.imgur.com/kDysIcd.gif
... Copied to Clipboard!
Kungfu Kenobi
08/01/17 8:35:59 PM
#11:


Yellow posted...
Foppe posted...
You have a filter that already cover the whole site, and if you got any skills then it is the default thing that cover anything you add.
Adding something that wont use the filter requires you do make a whitelist, not to add it to the filter.

Why do you figure they do that? Every bit of text shown on the site? Now I might not have done much HTML, but that seems incredibly inefficient.

They don't even let you enter cuss words into the tagging box, that really has nothing to do with any "filter that covers the whole site".


What he's saying is that whether or not something is more work depends on specific facts of implementation concerning the word filter. Assume there's a filter that grabs anything a user might type into the site at any point. Since tags and posts are displayed differently, it's entirely possible that the censor code runs on the display portion of the system that gets posts and puts them up for you to see, and since tags are displayed differently it's possible that code was never made to work with tags - that would be less work. It would be easier in that case to simply disallow anything that would need to be censored from being in tags.
---
This album is not available to the public.
Even if it were, you wouldn't wanna listen to it!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 8:40:22 PM
#12:


Yeah but you can type cuss words into the post box and it doesn't reject it, so that's not the same filter.

It's an incredibly easy thing to implement, it's just a weird goofy Gamefaqs thing to do.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
green dragon
08/01/17 8:41:50 PM
#13:


wwinterj25 posted...
YWa4t4i

lmao
... Copied to Clipboard!
Kungfu Kenobi
08/01/17 8:47:49 PM
#14:


Yellow posted...
Yeah but you can type cuss words into the post box and it doesn't reject it, so that's not the same filter.


*facepalm*

*forehead slide*

*facedesk*

Just because the global filter allows certain things in certain contexts doesn't means it's not the same filter you [stops before getting modded for flaming] confused individual.
---
This album is not available to the public.
Even if it were, you wouldn't wanna listen to it!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 9:22:40 PM
#15:


Kungfu Kenobi posted...
Yellow posted...
Yeah but you can type cuss words into the post box and it doesn't reject it, so that's not the same filter.


*facepalm*

*forehead slide*

*facedesk*

Just because the global filter allows certain things in certain contexts doesn't means it's not the same filter you [stops before getting modded for flaming] confused individual.

I understand exactly what you're trying to tell me. I'm not confused, I just think you're wrong. Again, I know a little HTML, not a whole lot. Unless people here actually code HTML I don't want to hear it.

I know PotD likes to argue adamantly about things they're not knowledgeable about, but this is almost scary. What else are people so dead wrong about?

Let me sit down and give you a little lesson.

Almost every programming language uses a thing called "strings". Strings are data types that hold sentences and series of letters. To apply a word filter, you have to pass a string. The whole body of HTML that displays the entire website IS NOT A SINGLE STRING. There is no "global filter", or any hilariously technically incompetent gibberish going on itt. Everything is micromanaged.

Right click this page and press "inspect" or "view source". See all that URL randomly generated gibberish? Do you think you can filter the word "tit" from there with a "global filter"? No, you would break things.

Maybe you should stop hitting your head.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 9:34:53 PM
#16:


And while I'm at it

Foppe posted...
Or if you want a serious answer, CBS want to cover their asses just in case. And it requires work to put a part of the site outside the censorlist, which might glitch so nothing gets censored, and we are back at covering asses.

This is an entirely different hilariously wrong answer.

adjl posted...
That's the big thing. There's really no point in specifically designing such a small part to be different from the rest of the boards.

This is a conclusion from a wrong answer.

So to summarize
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7Hn1rPQouU

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Melon_Master
08/01/17 10:05:18 PM
#17:


wwinterj25 posted...
YWa4t4i

---
http://i.imgur.com/linui.png http://i.imgur.com/FiYI1.jpg
PotDs UnOfficial President and Official Sheldon Cooper
... Copied to Clipboard!
Veedrock-
08/01/17 10:06:04 PM
#18:


TC tagged as *****.

Sorry I don't feel like doing a gif like helly.
---
My friends call me Vee.
I'm not your friend, buddy.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Krazy_Kirby
08/01/17 10:43:08 PM
#19:


some people here can't even handle the word "idiot". you think people could handle seeing uncensored tags if they were ever seen?
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/01/17 10:43:49 PM
#20:


Johnny Eagle posted...
Because GameFAQs is stupid like that

At least this poster knows what he's talking about.

I like how the right answers just go ignored 90% of the time here.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
08/01/17 11:51:35 PM
#21:


Can some users not see what other people have them tagged as?

I'm always able to see when someone has me tagged as something
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead
"I'm Mary Poppins ya'll!"
... Copied to Clipboard!
helly
08/01/17 11:55:04 PM
#22:


Mead posted...
Can some users not see what other people have them tagged as?

I'm always able to see when someone has me tagged as something

liar
---
killin' darth vader
with my mother****in' kick drum
... Copied to Clipboard!
Kungfu Kenobi
08/02/17 1:56:24 AM
#23:


Yellow posted...
Right click this page and press "inspect" or "view source". See all that URL randomly generated gibberish?


*does so*

What I see is the sort of typical generated markup common to large sites like this with various templates filled out by the server.

It's not gibberish to me, because I know what I'm talking about.

In fact, I saw nothing that would indicate any sort of client-side content filtering. I even disabled the scripts on GameFAQs and turned on the content filter just to check, and the fucking fuck fucks were censored. This indicates a server-side operation.

Yellow posted...
Do you think you can filter the word "tit" from there with a "global filter"? No, you would break things.


But that's not where the filtering is happening, and no one's saying it is.

Also, there's no reason you can't do that kind of filtering client-side as long as the script knows what fields to check. This is why I knew to check it by disabling the scripts, because this breaks client-side content filtering on other sites (sites I can't mention openly). I can't link to the site, but in the page source you get something like:
<script id="user-blacklisted-tags" type="application/json">
["string_1", "string_2", "string_3"]


I've redacted some private information, but you get the idea. What that line does is define a set of strings associated with certain elements on the page to be stripped out. A script running in the browser (not the server) matches those strings against metadata assigned to every relevant element, and if it finds a match, that element isn't displayed. A similar method could easily be done ahead of each post in a GameFAQs thread, but instead of simply stripping out the elements completely, it does a character replacement. Of course, this would require GameFAQs to post every word in its filter in every page, which is kinda counterproductive when you're trying to keep those words from getting served to the end user.

And that wouldn't be a "global filter" per se, but it's really two different discussions. I'm talking about a global server side filter, one that checks all user text coming in, and modifies it going out. Not something that does a hard and blind (and frankly so brain-dead no one would ever actually do it) 'find and replace' on raw HTML.

Okay so serious question here - since I can prove you're 100% wrong on this by pointing to working implementations of a process you outright said "would break things", why should I take anything else you have to say seriously? I mean, I don't have a background in web development. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about it.

But what I do have is 20 years of programming experience. I've worked on MUDs, some of the most complicated text serving applications outside of academic natural language processing, and know what a fucking string is. But I'm not an HTML coder, so maybe you don't want to hear it, never mind that I can identify differences in content filtering styles from one site to the next just by reading the page source. >_>
---
This album is not available to the public.
Even if it were, you wouldn't wanna listen to it!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/02/17 2:47:39 AM
#24:


Well that just brings this right back to square one, which is why I decided to assume everyone itt was an armchair IT expert.

GameFAQs does allow curse words in posts. Fuck. It doesn't allow curse words in tags. No matter what, there should be literally no reason for the rejection dialogue

SM4XRUd

As a matter of fact the whole filtering thing, (conceding that it is a thing I did not know about), really has nothing to do with the fact that trying to tag someone with a curse word doesn't work. If GameFAQs did use a filter such as that, then it would filter the curse words you used to tag them if you had the option enabled, simple as that. Aka working as intended.

If GameFAQs were to remove that failure dialogue, cussing in tags would most likely be enabled on the spot. That's my final take on this.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
08/02/17 2:55:45 AM
#25:


This is stupid either way. I mean they didn't even use punctuation in their poorly thought out dialogue box so I don't see the point in arguing about how the bloody thing works.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
helly
08/02/17 5:18:17 AM
#26:


helly posted...
you still have to censor your signature, too.

that's probably the dumbest of them all. just have the built in auto censor effect that, too.

just gonna ignore this ok

an argument can be made for the tag box, since it's not the normal posting mechanic for the boards

however, your signature is added to your posts. it's using the same mechanic, it's just hidden from view.
---
killin' darth vader
with my mother****in' kick drum
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1