idiggory the Fussy wrote:
To be completely blunt, it wasn't unnecessarily hostile.
Until your last response, our actual questions about the filter have been almost completely ignored. We get that there has to be a filter, we get why there has to be a filter, we get that words we don't want filtered are on the list.
The problem is with the communication from Zam's end. To be blunt, it's been horrible.
The questions have been answered multiple times, by multiple people in multiple threads. We've also answered numerous PM's about it.
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
And to get specific to Maz's post, Kao, you directly reported false info to us, which is why Maz's post about looking all over for adsense lists even exists. Y'know, the post you called hostile.
They did at one point have a published list. it used to be here:
https://support.google.com/adwords/topic/16862?page=guidelines.cs&subtopic=9279 Not sure when it went away. They pulled it for unknown reasons.
Kao, page 1 wrote:
he phrases added to the filter were taken directly from the list google adsense published of objectionable phrases they use to determine suitability of a site to maintain adsense advertising eligibility.
We've been confused because you told us there was a google-published list. And there isn't. I have no issue with the actual source of the list. I do have issue with the fact that there's no mechanism to appeal words, but the source, no. What I do have an issue with is getting told false info and then being treated like we're being whiny children when we don't understand what's happening.
No, instead we get told to suck it up for calling Zam out on its BS and that our questions continue to be ignored. I get it, you're in a tough situation, that sucks. But no one blames you for the filter existing. We ARE annoyed at the response, or lack thereof, we've had about it.
I'm giving
you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you initially reported what you thought was the case, and didn't directly misconstrue the situation. And I'm sorry you're irritated, but Zam could have just posted the information in your last post at the start, and abated so much of this irritation.[/quote]
It for the most part has been posted in various sections of the forum, PM'ed to people who asked, e-mailed. etc. Some of you have decided to make this particular unpleasant and annoying change a topic of a crusade despite being told that we're really kind of stuck with it for the reasons outlined multiple times, and it is getting old.
Mazra wrote:
Thank you for the additional info on the origin of the list, Kao. A lot of things make more sense now, which has alleviated much of my frustration. I'm sorry my post annoyed you - it was not my intention to lay the blame on you guys (admins).
Ok, maybe I read too much into it, I will take it as you intended and not as I read it. You can see why this whole thing makes me somewhat grumpy though.
Mazra wrote:
Everything else has already been said by Digg. The reaction from you (admins), whenever we poke the subject, reminds me of the AdBlock case, which is why I brought it up. It feels like someone higher up red-taped the entire thing and told you guys to not talk about it, because maybe it would go away on its own.
The adblock piece came from Draknorr, who is no longer an employee of the site. It was a horrible mistake and we told them it was stupid from the beginning. This is different. We don't want to keep talking about it because it's an annoying issue that has no good side to it. every time it gets dredged back up again people get annoyed, we get annoyed, and nothing good will come of it.
Mazra wrote:
A question regarding the filter: Are we allowed to manually filter swear words? Like, am I allowed to write 'd*mn' or 'dmn' instead of having asterisks completely mess up the tone of the post? Technically, d*mn/dmn is not a swear word (it's not a word at all), but would it still trigger?
Not trying to stir the pot, but the filter, in its current form, creates a lot of problems. I know that we're not allowed to manually filter the f-word and such, because PG-13 is PG-13 or something, but what about words that are only blocked to prevent the Adsense robot from picking them up? I'm assuming a word with a random asterisk in it does not get flagged, but I don't know.
I personally don't care if you break the filter by manually censoring words, within reason. some of them would have been filtered anyways. This entire new filter is a technical effort to prevent a second google adsense ban, not something in place to hide users from things we particularly object to on a personal level.
Kastigir wrote:
Kao wrote:
The others blocked include German and Russian spam terms, one of which "fitxxx" seems to be related to.
So, if you were better at blocking spammers, which ZAM seems not to be, we possibly wouldn't be seeing this massive overreaction?
Ok, pay attention. I'm only going to go over this bit one more time. The latest batch of spammers are from India, which has absolutely stupid computer laws. They spam in various languages. They spam at hours of the night when we admins are usually asleep. they have several entire ISP ranges worth of addresses to play with. We've seen them from pretty much the entire 182.xxx.xxx.xxx range I know where their spam servers are located, Which group of idiots is likely doing it, and even what spamming platform they are using, and no one in India seems to be willing to do a damned thing about it. For every one spam you are seeing, and far more of them are getting through than I like, there are another thousand we are intercepting. Average banned topic counts for the week are ranging in the 2,000 - 3,000 numbers, and that doesn't even begin to count the ones the anti posting filter successfully blocks. We are being hit with a constant, huge wave of spam absolutely least suited for easy stoppage, with limited developer resources. With all that in mind, we are actually doing better finally, and starting to get on top of that wave and smash it into the ground.