Is it just me, or is there an uptick in the number of auto edits?

Look, I get profanity. But Di-ck? And others that make normal words screw up, including sp_ic and ag_gy?

Can you guys relook at this please?

http://texags.com/forums/69/topics/2688103

Interesting. I'm not a programmer, but I wonder how much time it would take recoding that. 30 minutes? Seems like there would be a table to filtered words; just delete the stuff that isn't clear profanity.

Actually, it's very difficult to come up with a good profanity filter.

If you're curious: https://blog.codinghorror.com/obscenity-filters-bad-idea-or-incredibly-intercoursing-bad-idea/

quote:

---

Obscenity filtering is an enduring, maybe even timeless problem. I'm doubtful it will ever be possible to solve this particular problem through code alone.

---

It's difficult to come up with a perfect one.

It's pretty easy to come up with a decent one, and gradually improve it over time as you encounter exceptions.

But really the best solution would be to allow people to turn it off. Then you don't have to develop the world's best filter. Anyone delicate enough to want to avoid reading the word ag_gy won't mind having shag_gy mistakenly censored. And the rest of us (probably 95% of users) can just turn it off.

quote:

---

It's pretty easy to come up with a decent one, and gradually improve it over time as you encounter exceptions.

---

TexAgs used to have a whitelist with exceptions, but it was removed at some point. We've considered adding something similar back in.

You're right, the best solution would be an option to disable the filter.

Unfortunately, we can't drop what we're developing presently for something we don't consider a high priority item. We have certain development goals we are trying to meet.

Also, I'm not saying that we'll never readdress the word filter. There are just certain tasks we need to complete before we can start looking at some of these issues.

profanity is one thing - and a on/off is a perfect solution.


but the concept of filtering ag-gy is just childish.

first it lends credence to the (incorrect) idea that we are offended by the term ag-gy. In reality most aggies I've seen on discussions on the topic don't find it demeaning in any way because it has no negative context at all. It is a (moronic) misspelling and we simply think the person using it is dumb - which is probably true. by filtering it you make people think it offends us. it is no more offensive to me than someone writing "nite" for night.

second, it does mess up other things including links sometimes that have nothing to do with ag-gy as a term, just an occurrence of letters in that order.

there are legitimate words containing ag-gy that just look dumb being filtered and ruin comprehension:
shag-gy, nag-gy, sag-gy, bag-gy, brag-gy, snag-gy. etc....granted those words might not be used a lot but when they are filtered they make that phrase stand out and generally make it unreadable. like if you were trying to talk about a sh**** dog, then people think you are saying "shi-tty" dog or something.

anyway an on/off would solve this stupidity as well.