Jump to content

spacing letters apart fools profanity filter.


SJ77

Recommended Posts

Posted

Suppose the word you wanted to block was "crap"  If you put "crap" into the profanity filter it will work perfectly fine. However, if the users put in "c r a p" there is no way to block it.

Even if I put "c r a p" into the profanity filter it doesn't accept "c r a p" as a string. Thus it won't block "c r a p" from being posted. (no pun intended)

 

My users have figured this out and are using prohibited language like crazy.

Posted
1 hour ago, superj707 said:

Suppose the word you wanted to block was "crap"  If you put "crap" into the profanity filter it will work perfectly fine. However, if the users put in "c r a p" there is no way to block it.

Even if I put "c r a p" into the profanity filter it doesn't accept "c r a p" as a string. Thus it won't block "c r a p" from being posted. (no pun intended)

 

My users have figured this out and are using prohibited language like crazy.

Log as a bug then - entering "c r a p" as the before in the profanity should match to the entry of "c r a p" in the editor. If it doesn't, then it's a bug.

  • Management
Posted

The word filter can only do so much and there are countless ways to fool it as a computer program cannot really read words. I could type cr4p and you know what I mean but a word filter never could. The word filter is a good tool but can never replace moderation.

Posted

I'd concur. A resourceful member will always find a way around it, the "older" way was to insert empty BBCode or suchlike. However if you let your members know that 'cheating' or attempting to bypass the items you have in the badword filter list without a good reason they would be subject to some kind of 'warning' for it, it may stop. :)

I thought about the filtering being more aggressive but that may likely impact on genuine posts as well.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Charles said:

The word filter can only do so much and there are countless ways to fool it as a computer program cannot really read words. I could type cr4p and you know what I mean but a word filter never could. The word filter is a good tool but can never replace moderation.

Correct - but the word filter should be filtering what is put in though. If I put in "crap" as the 'before' then I would expect it to filter out "crap" but wouldn't expect it to filter out "cr4p" or "c a r p" or "cr_p" or "carp"

But if I put in "c a r p" as the 'before' value then I would expect the filter to filter out "c a r p" from a post. It doesn't - have referenced that in a comment in the bug report.

4 minutes ago, AndyF said:

I'd concur. A resourceful member will always find a way around it, the "older" way was to insert empty BBCode or suchlike. However if you let your members know that 'cheating' or attempting to bypass the items you have in the badword filter list without a good reason they would be subject to some kind of 'warning' for it, it may stop. :)

I thought about the filtering being more aggressive but that may likely impact on genuine posts as well.

Agreed too - but the filter should be filtering out what is put in there. Don't take the initial report as an indication that the admin is hoping that the filter for "crap" would filter out "c r a p"

Do you agree that if something is in the 'before' and then that exact item is typed in a post then it should be filtered out when submitted?

Posted

I agree with Nathan, It's not a philosophical issue at all. The current tool isn't working. I put in "C A R P " and it didn't filter for it.

It's broken.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Nathan Explosion said:

Do you agree that if something is in the 'before' and then it is typed in a post then it should be filtered out?

Yes within a sensible region. It may be quite annoying for the user (and the admin) it if has to deal with potential spacing as well, I'm thinking of increasing processing time if nothing else...

Posted
6 minutes ago, Nathan Explosion said:

Do you agree that if something is in the 'before' and then it is typed in a post then it should be filtered out?

 

Posted
1 minute ago, AndyF said:

Yes within a sensible region. It may be quite annoying for the user (and the admin) it if has to deal with potential spacing as well, I'm thinking of increasing processing time if nothing else...

Perfect - in this case, "c r a p" as the 'before' value is NOT filtered out if the user types "c r a p" in the post (go on...give it a test)

This is not a case of having to deal with potential spacing so that "crap" = "c r a p" & "crap" & "cr ap"

It's a simple "c r a p" = "c r a p" comparison.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Nathan Explosion said:

Perfect - in this case, "c r a p" as the 'before' value is NOT filtered out if the user types "c r a p" in the post (go on...give it a test)

This is not a case of having to deal with potential spacing so that "crap" = "c r a p" & "crap" & "cr ap"

It's a simple "c r a p" = "c r a p" comparison.

yes, so far both staff members are misunderstanding the request here. I think you're doing a better job explaining it than me Nathan. I hope they slow down and read this again. Thank you for explaining. Maybe they just need to try it for themselves. Whatever is put into the before should at the very least be filtered out.

  • Management
Posted

I think the assumption was you're expecting "crap" to filter "c r a p" -- sorry. If it's not filtering as you entered in the AdminCP, it's best to submit a ticket or file a bug report. Thanks.

Posted
1 hour ago, Lindy said:

I think the assumption was you're expecting "crap" to filter "c r a p" -- sorry. If it's not filtering as you entered in the AdminCP, it's best to submit a ticket or file a bug report. Thanks.

Thanks Lindy, yeah, I think its my fault. My thread title could have been more clear. I am expecting "c r a p" to filter "c r a p"

I filed a bug report.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...