Andrεw Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I think that when using censoring, it should be stripped of it's tags. It could be easily bypassed like this. Let's say the word is "test"t[b][/b]est it would show up the same, but uncensored :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jυra Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I like this even though I don't filter, but they'll have to do it for all BBcode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostedPopTart Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Unfortunately, for no reason at all this feature will be removed in IPB 3.0. I am so saddened by this. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jυra Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 They're removing word filters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrixieTang Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Unfortunately, for no reason at all this feature will be removed in IPB 3.0. I am so saddened by this. :( Where did you hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon D Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Heh, PopTart is referring to the ability to bypass word filters by embedding empty bbcode tags within the word as the "feature" being removed in IPB3. In other words, this is getting fixed and he doesn't want it to be. Was a debate in the bug tracker between him and bfarber, don't have have the link and I'm too lazy to search for it right now :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?...;showissue=9125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrεw Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Since I run a website for people of all ages, I have to make sure that it is appropriate for everyone, so this is great for me :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jυra Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I'd like to know why someone wouldn't want this fixed. I read the tracker thread and didn't find any reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrixieTang Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I believe this may be a reason. faecesake Mushrooms :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostedPopTart Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I believe this may be a reason. faecesake Mushrooms :lol: See bfarter, another reason not to remove that feature. Put it back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malefickus Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 I, for one, think that the difference in opinion was clearly stated in the tracker thread, and continuing to beg for it to be un-fixed is probably becoming slightly annoying to the staff. As bfarber mentioned in the tracker thread, if you don't want the badword filter, you can turn it off. People like myself and others who run sites where there may be minors that are active would like some control on what is viewed on our forums to make is safe® for them. Allowing a method of bypassing that without administrative approval is NOT ideal. I, for one, am glad that this little loophole is being closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostedPopTart Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 Not sure what you tried to say there, FPT..... :blink: But as was said several times above, if you don't want the word filter used then just..... TURN IT OFF. I'm glad the ability is there. I, too, have a site that has children on it, and I don't want them to see the kind of language that the filter was meant to catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jυra Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Isn't there or wasn't there an option for a word to be filtered if used exactly like something or slightly different? Someone would still be able to say faecesake all they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Isn't there or wasn't there an option for a word to be filtered if used exactly like something or slightly different? Someone would still be able to say faecesake all they want. That is correct, you can set it up to allow shitake but not faeces. (I know that will change to faeces, but you know what I mean). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostedPopTart Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 We don't need to beat a dead horse here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.