What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
The Cruise Industry's Deep Secret view!
howlifeworks.com - What happens to all the unsold cabins and the web service gives you access to them at up to 70% off
78 Comments
- admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36be prepared to be dugg down by all the folks who surf from work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23wheres the example content? :D
- st00p1d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I'm sorry, but "You should not surf the net at work" may be one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on digg.
- diggmichi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17After reading this post, I took several hours to write a javascript library that does this from the content-owner's side. It is very simple, and you just drop it in your page to make all your NSFW content obscured.
You can find the entry (with an example!) that describes it here: http://michikono.com/blog/2006/12/29/a-new-library-nsfw-js-protect-your-visitors-at-work/
Digg link here: http://digg.com/programming/Got_Content_NSFW_Use_this_to_protect_your_visitors - pjdoland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14People already indicate that content is NSFW in body text. This just allows them to do the same thing in a machine-readable format.
It's not a magic-bullet for content-filtering or anything like that. It's just a way for content creators to be courteous to their readers. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@SpookyET:
That's nice -- so, you don't actually have a job then? Here in the real world, people occasionally have time to kill at work, or need to take a break, and our bosses are fine with it. - skeletron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
*gasp*
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
*pant pant pant*
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. yeah, right. - jaredvolkl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I like the idea, but as someone in the comments of the site brought up, it'd be up to the coder to use the tag. It's a good idea in theory, but I just don't think it will work out in practice.
- xsecretfiles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I have no idea what's going on..too many geek terms make my brain hurt
- roadkillkid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know about you guys, but I'd be pretty pissed if I clicked on giant penguin ***** and was redirected to the white house.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8OR you could... I don't know... WORK at work?
- 0004, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5quote from SpookyET above:
NSFW is bollocks. a) You should not surf the net at work. b) If you do, face the consequences.
/endquote
or c) change the policy to allow that stuff. (or don't have a policy in the first lace)
my boss at work keeps emule started all day and 99% of the ***** he downloads is XXX movies.
all day.. every day... you'd think he has filled his hdd already.. but nooo... he got a special firewire storage device just for his porn. 1 terabyte of porn storage, with RAID-5 even. lol
i had to set a speed limit for the POS in the router as he kept sucking all the available bandwidth. - eargang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While at first my response was "omg i liked the REL for everything", using a class as an additional marker is quite clever and does expand the spec a lot. Clever and clean. The trick will be to educate the masses.
- Thequestion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Unless you're the National Weather Service.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry, I can't see this catching on. The rel="nofollow" tag caught on so well because the attribute was added to anchor tags automatically by the CMS software, not by the content creators.
I'm sure 90% of the people using the rel="nofollow" attribute don't even know they are using it.
If WordPress or MovableType weren't adding the attribute for people, then the rel="nofollow" attribute would have gone no-where.
Unfortunately there is no way for CMS software to understand nsfw content. It's easy for the CMS to decide that all links posted in comments should be nofollow, but nsfw? CMSs aren't that smart yet. :)
So that leaves the job of adding the rel="nsfw" attribute to the content creates, and most people really won't bother. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As quick as pressing your caps lock key?
- phpkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even if it was tagged as such, once the content passes through the corporate firewall, you are responsible for having viewed it, regardless if the browser strips it out or not.
If HR / IT were to audit traffic to and from you rPC, it woudl still show up, unless the content filter on the firewall, ids, proxy, etc honored the tags in the same fashion. - cesig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Heck, at my last job I played WoW on the clock with my boss. Nobody cared. (I answered phones. If nobody called, I had nothing to do.)
Point is: There are jobs where surfing the net or other forms of goofing around are perfectly legit. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So instead of killing some time, go and bother other people and drag them away from their work because you need to be entertained?
Grow up. You've obviously never worked in an office environment before. - kingyubba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@roadkillkid
whitehouse.com used to be a porn site.... note that he didn't link whitehouse.gov, which of course leads to ***** of the non-penguin kind. - positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You CAN have multiple classes on an element actually. Just separate them with a single space. ex. class="first second third etc"
beat by diggmichi, but I gave an example ;) - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This isn't really about preventing your browser from showing NSFW images. It's about helping you not click on NSFW links in the first place.
For example, every once in a while, something NSFW makes the front page of digg. The rel=nsfw tag helps you not click the link. No NSFW content ever passes your firewall. - tomi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digg needs an idiotic poster tag.
(not directed at you.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***** that, you shouldn't be surfing the web at work anyways. i don't have an ounce of pity for people who receive unpleasant surprises by clicking on a link i posted when you knew damn well it might get you in trouble. stop breaking company policies, and stop complaining.
- diggmichi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually you can. Simply put spaces between class names.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great, you can add updating semantic markup to your website maintenance duties.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the class implementation would make adoption easier; especially when you implement options to remove nsfw links from display using css.
- bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All you people posting that "people at work should work" should keep in mind that NSFW has a greater meaning than just not safe for *work*. It gives warning that the content may contain objectionable material that you wouldn't want shown in front of your kids, while browsing the web with your 65 year old mother standing next to you, while searching for questionable search terms that may be mixed heavily with what would normally be considered "safe".
Maybe they ought to broaden the scope a bit and ditch the NSFW moniker altogether. - MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who'd have thought that Goatse would be the inspiration for a worthwhile invention?
- CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's completely impossible to tell why people digg perfectly-reasonable comments down. You might as well accept your digg count as the outcome of a stochastic process. Taking it personally is not only pointless, but unrealistic.
- DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pjdoland
Your thinking too small...
What if, like the writer hints at, browsers would implement some sort of global option that would filter all NSFW links? Then the HTML coder could put the attribute in there and if in the event that a person who has no interest in NSFW links happened across one it would never even show the link.
Of course that is but one example of how it could be used in a positive way.
@izzybomb
You right it is not often that you run across a NSFW link in a mainstream article but if you did and didn't want to be exposed to such things wouldn't it be nice to have the option of having it automatically removed? - Skwerl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Most of the time you can tell by the topic of the story what types of images or movies clips it may contain. Stop browsing the web at work, problem solved.
- electrichead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@nilobject: "content" ... :D
- giantAppleCore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wouldn't mind a script. Something that maybe bolded the link, and made it red, and appended NSFW to the link title or something. Or had a title Attribute of NSFW. I'd use it,
- itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2here's an idea, make some BB code like [NSFW] that will implement this concept
- tomi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lemme guess, you posted that from work?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6(bury me please)
- MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some of us work in a world where we are on call, but required to be in an office until our services are needed. If company policy allows, it is perfectly acceptable to browse the web at work. YMMV
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1giant penguin *****? no thanks
- izzybomb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Often you don't see nsfw unless your on sites like kontraband or break, and im not sure they worry about being "courteous" to their work surfing visitors.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Otto - I understand what you're saying, but in this case I think it's *impossible* for any software to make use of the rel="nsfw" attribute. You can try to make it easier for people to use the attribute, but in the end it will always be a manual process, unlike the rel="nofollow" attribute.
- MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Rikkochet
We have several people that work here that do go annoy other people when they are bored. If I put my headphones on in the middle of our conversation you can bet you are one of them ;-)
I wish they would go browse the web and leave me alone. - erikuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is sooo lame and inaccurate. It's just defining REL, but many browsers doesn't translate it well, especially IE before IE 6 and Firefox before Firefox 1.5.
If I want to exclude pornographic content, I just exclude it using PICS rating for explicit content. It's much usable. - nucleocide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stupid idea. Search engines should never have to do anything with regards to CSS or DOM attributes.
Plus, this will never catch on. Not only will nobody ever know about it, but who wants to decrease the amount of hits to their pornographic websites? If I can get a 13 yr old hooked on porn and I'm running a porn site, yay for me.
The people who do link to bad sites with good names in the link text are not the kind of people that don't want that link clicked. Also anyone linking to Google with big penguin dick is probably an idiot.
*This was originally to be posted on their site however their form isn't submitting* - johnie1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i use this ace style:
http://userstyles.org/style/show/48
when i hover over a link that links to a pdf it changes the mouse cursor to the Adobe icon, easy to implement. The possibilities for doing this on a NSFW link would be cool, maybe change the cursor into 3 Xs - Skwerl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No idea on the first post, as for the second one, "dugged" isn't a word.
- SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Greasemonkey script: http://www.digg.com/software/Not_Safe_For_Work_NSFW_Greasemonkey_Script
- roadkillkid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dude why don't you go peddle your scripting prowess elsewhere? You're getting dugg down for a number of reasons. CAPS, submitting a comment with absolutely no relevance to the FA, and for being a dumbass. And every time you reply to someone in this thread asking why, you'll be reminded with a little red thumbs down. Huzzah.
- vanadium77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You forget that XXX sites are also looking for a way to keep their content from kids in order to prevent a full-scale government crackdown (even moreso than the past 5 years). If this kind of thing takes off, it wouldn't be difficult to persuade pornographic content owners to adopt the directive and thus make it far easier to filter their content, staving off additional regulation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think a safe for work tag would also be good. Most people arent going to bother tagging things nsfw and it only takes one to be busted. Its far better to have a safe tag that way if its not tagged at all you can just assume its not safe, rather than assuming it is safe (which lets face it is pretty unlikely).
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
