Private message filters & Invisible Mode

Discussion in 'Site and Forum Feedback' started by GoCubsGo, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #1
    I originally made a statement (not here but on the phone) that I would research the VBulletin software and see if this can be done, but alas, I figured I'd start a thread.

    Item 1 up for discussion:
    Can private message foul-language filtering be turned off? Specifically, when I say the word **** (that is F-word for those confused by the filter applied here) in a PM it is replaced by asterisks. While this is fun and all, it certainly makes it completely difficult to talk dirty in private messages. I mean, who wants to see the climatic event be asterisked out? Isn't that similar to a total c-block?

    Ok, perhaps I am mildly kidding about how dirty I am in PMs, but I have been known to use a few foul words in PMs, especially when I discuss a member's declaration that spankings will recommence when there was no past commencement of spankings in the first place. Still, it's be nice not to be filtered.

    Item 2 up for discussion:
    Is it possible in the VB forum software to make yourself invisable to everyone but those on your buddy list? If so, is it something that can be implemented? It doesn't appear to be a feature that we can use based on features in the control panel (at least I looked that far), so I wonder if VB can handle such extravangant features.
     
  2. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Disabling the profanity filter for PMs only is not possible with a regular vBulletin installation. We try not to install too many hacks due to their tendency to interfere with each other and to break when the forum is upgraded, and I'm not aware of a functional hack for this sort of thing anyway.

    There of course is also the issue of users who don't want to see profanity in their PMs, which leads to the proposal of the profanity filter being a user option. My understanding is that this is not really possible due to the way the profanity filter is implemented.

    2. Same deal with invisible users being visible to buddies...not available out of the box, and there don't appear to be any hacks for it that I can see. From what I know, it wouldn't necessarily be a trivial hack.

    Sorry I couldn't bring better news. :(
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    We'll just have to take stick with IMing.
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    WC, you raise an interesting option, were it possible.

    Filtering at the viewer level, as an option in the User CP.

    Swearing doesn't bother me, if it is used to emphasise a point of some kind. Otherwise, I might suspect the motives of the poster.
     
  5. GoCubsGo thread starter macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #5
    It is ok and it makes perfect sense on both counts.

    ROFL I don't believe I've ever had the pleasure of IMg you. I have exactly 4 people on my BL, my mom being one and I don't talk to her that way. Of the other three I only talk to one and I try to behave. ;)

    You must be very suspect of my motives then! :p
     
  6. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #6
    The problem is that the censored version is what is actually stored in the database, so there is no uncensored version that could be delivered to users. And even if the database could be configured to contain both censored and uncensored versions, the overhead involved in checking upon each page load which version the user loading the page wants would be significant to say the least.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    Well sure, if the censored version has to be stored, regardless, that would create double entries in the DB.

    Why not just store the original post, then invoke the sensor upon downloading??

    Just being an analyst again. Sorry. :eek:
     
  8. Knox Administrator

    Knox

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    In the vast majority of cases posts will be read many more times than they are saved so from an efficiency point of view it makes sense to only do the processing once rather than each time it's viewed (the processing also includes all the BBCode conversion to HTML).

    In any case, we couldn't realistically change vB to that extent.
     
  9. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #9
    OK, a valid argument. Processing time.

    This I understand. ;)

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page