YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE THE MOST ABOUT 4CHAN? WHEN I'M HAVING A DISCUSSION BUT IT HITS A DEAD BECAUSE "IM FUCKING SORRY SIR, OUR SYSTEM THINKS THIS POST IS A SPAM, PLEASE BE OUR LITTLE BITCH AND CONFIGURE THINGS A THOUSAND TIMES SO WE RUB OUR FUCKING ASS CRACKS KNOWING HOW INCONVENIENCING OUR RETARDED SYSTEM IS."
HOW ABOUT YOU LET US SEE THE WORD AND PHRASE FILTERS SO I KNOW WHAT TO TAKE OUT YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES
>>464263
Were you trying to post a link with a spamfiltered word in it? Or are you mad because you don't know what word it was that triggered the spamfilter?
>>464271
The latter. In fact, not a single word had anything to with overused memes.
dumb frog poster
>>464274
Probably detected frogposting.
Obviously not 100% yet.
Maybe because OP is a bit off color.
>>464263
STOP HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO OTHER WEBSITES THEN, ANON!
What exactly did you try to post?
>>465013
OOHHHHH SHIT.
i agree this really is annoying. You're going to change the wording and guess what the word is after a bit of searching so it should just indicate which word is not allowed
>>465013
Hey Hiro.
That happened fo me only once and and it was very long post, so I wasn't sure what triggered it, but I got rid of it by rewriting the post. Most likely you are just low quality shitposter and system is doing its job by keeping you from posting or linking crap.
>>465013
I hope you had a good day.
>>465013
We need another message on the top of the page. Like the "Wait warmly" one.
>>465013
Hello Hiro.
I partially agree on making filtered words public.
I mean, a spammer could see what's blocked and what's not, allowing him to spam variations of what's blocked. That is the negative part.
>>465013
He can't say because it's spam filtered you DORK
>>465020
Just because your post includes a non-allowed word doesn't mean it's a low quality post
Let's say you're comparing 2^3chan and 4chan in a long and good post (comparing the behavior, boards, what is being deleted and what isn't), the mere usage of the word 8 chan would consider your post as low-quality when it really isn't. Or just quoting the sentence "go back to red dit" when discussing when the sentence is used, when it isn't, why it is good / bad.
Those type of discussions can and do happen on /qa/. I agree that these sentences are posted most of the time in low-quality post, but it should indicate which word is not allowed so that non low-quality post can avoid using them.
>>465030
The question would be then why would you have discussion like that to begin with. If you happen to get into debates over these topics that often then yes, you are probably shitposter.
/qa/ is an expection, since it's semi-meta board, so you can have legitimate and actualy quality on-topic post with some of the filtered words and I wouldn't mind it being modified/turned off on this board, but honestly, who would bother to do that?
So if OP was having similar problems like that then it might be justifyable complaint, though random frogposting is always poor taste.
Also the only time I got filtered was on /qa/ and probably because I used reddit or some other site names too often, not sure, but I don't really mind.
>>465033
>The question would be then why would you have discussion like that to begin with.
Off-topic discussions can happen on boards other than /qa/. Well sure, you're not supposed to do it, but it happens all the time and it definitely can be good (depending on the subject and board of course).
>If you happen to get into debates over these topics that often then yes, you are probably shitposter.
Why that? 2^2chan and reddit are both communities doing vaguely the same as us but in very different ways. Talking about what happens on these websites and compare it to 4chan can be good. We can learn something from those websites or use what happens in them as a base for whether or not something is a good idea.
>/qa/ is an expection, since it's semi-meta board, so you can have legitimate and actualy quality on-topic post
Foolish of you to think that off-topic post is always bad. If the quality of the discussion is good, and if no one is being bothered by the discussion, then i believe there is nothing wrong with off-topic posting (as long as it doesn't become something that happens regularly)
Hello.
I want to know about the SPAM filter.
If it doesn't work properly, we have to fix it.
So, that's why I like to know the words.
>>465039
I'm not trying to say that offtopic is necessarily always low quality, but if you drift away from topic often enough that it's actual bothersome for you then the filters are probably just working well, but I really don't know the individual situation, so I cannot judge properly as it quite depends upon the board and other circumstances.
>>465041
The spam filter is good when short post are being filtered, because most of the time those post are low-quality post.
Now, when talking about long-post, most of the time the anon behind it took time to write it, reworded sentences a few time, and most of the time it is well thought. This is what i observed during my time here, that most long post are good quality well thought post, with an actual desire for discussion behind it.
If one of the words in a long post is filtered, and that you do not know which one it is, it will be very annoying. I had to remove whole paragraphs once to check which one of them had a non-allowed word. I wasn't shitposting, i was discussing with an anon, but the spam filter detected me as spam and it took me a good 5 minutes to be able to find which word was spam-filtered when i should able to post it instantly.
>>465047
The amount of long good post people tried to post with filtered words in it does not matter. What matters is that an user that wants good discussion will sometime struggle to have it because of those filters
Is that sacrifice worth it? Shitposters tend to make short post and it won't be very hard for them to check which word is considered as spam in a 8 words sentence. Only time filtered words are effective are in long post, and now to the question is whether or not those are bad posts, but as previously discussed i believe they aren't.
The amount of long-post isn't that high on popular boards such as /pol/, /v/ or /a/ (it is in fact pretty low). Hell, even /qa/ isn't that full of long-post. So making it easier for them to post is a good idea i believe.
I just do not understand why the spam filter is considered worth to have when it is not effective in the first place against short shitposting messages (which are the majority of shitposting messages, needless to say)
>>465041
It works properly, OP used a filtered word in his post and the system blocked him. He's asking to make the wordfilter list public so we can know what words are blocked and what are not.
>>465041
The spam filter has been working the same way for some large number of years. While every now and then someone will get hit by a false positive, I believe publishing the actual filter list would be a terrible idea. It contains a huge list of websites and a smaller number of terms that are associated with spam.
If you want the full list you should probably just be asking one of the mythical 4chan developers.
>>465050
Well, I'd probably need to know about how the word filter works and how it could cause trouble for users on various boards to determing whether it's actually useful or not, but from what I've read in this thread, then it seems like it's doing its job properly, even though it might be job I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I personally just prefer filter that would change the shitpost words to random different word, since if you just filter senpai to sempai, then people are just going to spam sempai instead, since everyone'll know it's senpai anyway, if you make the word random, then it's really impossible to determine what the original word was, making the shitposting less possible and if some random properly used word gets filtered, then the post should still be readable from the context or the user can just correct it himself.
>>465057
>While every now and then someone will get hit by a false positive
Yeah, every now and then someone get hit by a false positive
But how much bad post does it prevent from being posted? How hard is it for people to guess which word is considered spam when they are shitposting? You have to take that into consideration, because it is really important as getting hit by a false positive is extremely annoying.
Making the filter list public probably would be a bad idea, but showing which word is considered as spam in your messages will help a lot people getting hit by false positives. Spam words that aren't being used much would not get discovered by the whole public, people getting hit by false positives will just have to reword a bit and everyone will be happy.
Currently, people can very well make a word list. It just take time to guess which messages are considered as spam, but if their messages get considered as spam they will search anyway. Making the list public? bad idea, but showing which word is considered as spam in your message would be good i believe.
Picture related. What would be the downside of doing this? I do not understand you guys, this seems reasonable to me.
>>465060
>but showing which word is considered as spam in your messages
This would entirely defeat the purpose of frustrating the spammer. as every time the filter tries to do its job it will also helpfully inform the user how to bypass it.
>How hard is it for people to guess which word is considered spam when they are shitposting?
The point of anything 4chan moderation does is not that it is invincible, but that it throws obstacles in the way of malicious posters in the hope in the hope that they get frustrated and stop. Basic example: the standard 4chan ban is not hard to get around, but they keep issuing them anyway.
>You have to take that into consideration, because it is really important as getting hit by a false positive is extremely annoying.
Unless something very wrong is happening, I think false positives should be handled case-by-case (either in /qa/ or through the feedback box) rather than systemically.
>>465068
>every time the filter tries to do its job it will also helpfully inform the user how to bypass it.
But it isn't even hard to know what the spam word is when you are shitposting, picture related.
If the purpose of spam filter is to prevent short shitposting, then it is completely useless. If the purpose is to prevent long shitposting, then it isn't that good because there are more people making good long post than shitposting long post, it will annoy the good poster more than the bad one
> but that it throws obstacles in the way of malicious posters in the hope in the hope that they get frustrated and stop.
I know, but what i am trying to say is that is also throws obstacles in the way of good posters.
It is obvious that a shitposter will tend to know what part of his messages is considered spam. He knows very well why is message is shitpost, trying to get around the filter wouldn't be that hard to him; But what about the good poster?
>Unless something very wrong is happening, I think false positives should be handled case-by-case (either in /qa/ or through the feedback box) rather than systemically.
I believe that moderation is what should be used to prevent long shitpost instead of automated filtered words. There simply are too much words in a long post and rewording each of them take a lot of time unless you have a doubt which one is considered as bad (which would require you to already know about current filters)
>>465050
I understand your thought.
But if the spam filter words are public, SPAMers take advantage of it.
>>465072
remove the boardwide filter on "go back to r3d1t"
just let swaglordfaggot keep it on his on board in /tv/.
>>465072
Can I be a mod?
>>465072
And i agree to that thought, which is why i believe you should only show the spam word if it is trying to be posted, instead of showing every single spam word
Let's say someone post something that is on the spam word list, something very very very wrong
Would you not think he already knows it is already very very very wrong? Why would he post it in the first place if he doesn't know about it? So showing him which word is filtered would change nothing for him cause he already knew what he posted was very wrong and can bypass the spam detection very easily
the same works for short messages with "go back to re ddit" or such, they know very well it is filtered and if they do not they will bypass it because they know very well it is considered as shitposting
What i am saying is that that the spam filter is more annoying to good posters than to bad ones
>>465072
This.
Some kind of people, such as 8gag, would take advantage of public wordfilters to spam us even more.
Also, Hiro, could you unfilter the 0n.n1mp.org prank site? Only newfags fall for it anyway.
I can see why people want to know what the filtered words and terms are, but I think the potential for abuse would be greater if the list was known.
>>465085
That idea would help, but wouldn't certain types of users go out of their way to make a list of the filtered words?
>>465089
That is true but nothing prevents them from doing it right now
It will only help them a bit as they won't have to search which words is being filtered, but let's not fool ourselves: if you're posting "go back to re ddit", and you get a spam filter notification, you know very well what triggered it
>>465072
What did you do or Why are the mods chimping out inviting redditors in this website?
>>465091
I don't know, it still seems like a bad idea to me.
if you can't figure out what word or phrase is triggering the spam filter, you're too stupid to post on 4chan.
>>465067
8gag is filtered, newfag.
>>465099
Probably a ban system that users couldn't get around. That way nobody would bother making stupid posts so often that a word filter has to be in place. Too bad such a thing will never exist.
>>465104
i don't get your point
>>465104
he knows that, he's pointing out that the 'please reformat; our system detects your post as spam' message can include the word that set off the filter.
>>465072
this is pretty much all that can be said on the issue, write into the mods if you have a specific problem, check the irc too.
the spam filter has bed the same way for years now, and that's because it works. if you have issues with specific wordfilters this is not a problem with the feature, but a personal problem that is best managed by personally contacting the moderators. but not by posting threads in /qa/ please.
>>465099
>which is why it isn't that useful
anything that makes it more difficult for morons to post is useful
>>465072
gib VP9
>>465125
>this is pretty much all that can be said on the issue
no one in the thread asked for the list to be public
>>465135
have you even read the damn thread?
>>465135
Uh... Anon, yes they did. In this thread. They did, Anon.
That being said I don't want the list made public. I think it's funny when losers can't post their aspierant.
>>465072
>SPAMers
I WANT TO HUG YOU SO BAD
>>465013
>>465041
>>465072
Spam filter works fine. I haven't encoutered it to often except for when you
>repeat
>repeat
>repeat
things a fucking lot and it flags it. The few times outside of that it isn't that bad, because it isn't too hard to pick out which word was the spam word. You just got to look for the word that isn't used often and maybe out of place.
