Can we block pornography while it's waiting for votes / pending?
Like so many others, I'd pay to blacklist domains. My family doesn't have a robust router nor a paid service to blacklist porn—we use the opendns service. But every time I submit a porn site for tagging, it literally takes a year in its pending status.
I realized today one solution:
Why not, maybe just on porn, set the default family filter or the whole site to block porn sites that don't have enough votes yet! Seriously, that's a great idea, because right now having to report a site and then wait literally a year to have it blocked isn't fast enough for your average family, school, small business, etc. If I catch a porn site, I need it blocked today. I suppose the real question is the false positive rate, and only you know that.
My dream, for some software somewhere if someone reading this wants to respond and pitch me on it, is a service where I can add things to a blacklist without a password but not remove them without the password, and one that will text me whenever someone hits a blocked site. Two simple requests. But I'd love to give only my wife the password, and then when my kids want to block themselves (or I want to block myself), we can just add things to the list and it will be instantly blocked. Then on the very rare occasion we need something unblocked that we previously thought was porn—THEN we could log in to fix it (or submit it to the company to get re-evaluated.) And texting us when someone hits a block would be gold, because we have teenagers.
Anyway, main point, because Porn is above all the category that carries some urgency to most people, it would be lovely if that category gave reporters the benefit of the doubt so things could be effectively-blacklisted without waiting so long. Because half the porn sites aren'r around very long.
-
Your best bet to get domains submitted to the domain tagging system approved quickly is to raise a support ticket, link "Submit a request" above.
And no, I cannot support your idea. Such a feature would open the doors for abuse by these trolls to block any believable web sites whenever they want. Even yet, there are so many fake and false submissions, so that would be a real and viable risk without the control of a final approval.
-
Would it be feasible to create an option for users to decide whether they want to blacklist upon submission or blacklist upon final approval in that category? I agree that porn sites are short lived enough that there are many users that would prefer that option even with the risk of false positives and trolls.
-
It would be probably feasible if people voted this idea up. Votes is all what counts. The idea has currently zero votes. (The original poster voted up, I voted down.)
I would have voted up for it, if the original poster requested this as an option only as you did, but he wanted this generally enforced which is nonsense.
-
I visited the site VIA webpagetest.org which provides somewhat safe thumbnails revealing this as obvious Pornography. Perhaps one resolution is to acquire a few more associates whom may assist you in acquiring the required category votes. I added my vote to the Pornography category.
Another approach; most of the adult content is apparently streaming from *.userapi.com which appears to be directly related to VK.COM as a visit to the TLD redirects to VK.com. If you really do not want this content on your network, perhaps you add a block list entry for all of userapi.com. This will not block 100% of the porn, as nothing will, it will likely block porn and other content from many other TLDs that are a part of the VK.COM network.
Settings/Web Content Fitering/Manage individual domains/Always Block userapi.com
Though I know this doesn't resolve the initial question in the manor proposed, it does provide a few possible solutions to the root problem.
Thank you,
Edwin
-
That's a very good idea. Not only for pornography but also for other categories (perhaps be able to manually choose categories to enable this feature on). I rarely see any sites that are wrongly listed, and even if they are, it's probably not a site I would ever visit. Maybe also add an option to only add it after a specified time, to allow for troll edits to be rejected. Or make another option so that only sites without a single downvote will show up.
@rotblitz Given that the feature is optional, this shouldn't be an issue for the majority of users. This can be further prevented by allowing us to see new additions, like Wikipedia. High traffic sites already have most non-relevant categories "rejected". The issue with trolls also applies to the current system.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
8 comments