Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghporter · Mar 8, 2008, 09:12 AM

So they finally got back with me about blocking my signature picture. It seems that I was right-my posting in the "P0rnstar/Dragqueen Name" thread was the culprit, and their software is retarded (in the extremely pejorative sense).

Here's the discussion:

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Glenn Porter <ghporter@ooooooo.ooo> wrote:

I host a small picture on ImageShack that's used in a discussion forum for my signature. Frequently today it has been blocked and replaced by an ImageShack error image that reads:
This page/domain banned b/c p0rn, warez, or topsite. If you feel this is an error, visit ImageShack® - Image Hosting, click "Contact ImageShack" and reference this pate/URL. WE CANNOT UNBAN WITHOUT A LINK TO THIS PAGE. ImageShack®

My image URL is "http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/513/arc4ow.gif"
A page that has had this image replaced by ImageShack (there have been several) was "http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lounge/363615/whats-your-drag-queen-p0rnstar-name/"

Surely it cannot be a violation of ImageShack terms of service to mention terms like "p0rnstar" on a page... What is going on and how can I get it fixed?

Glenn Porter
----- Original Message ----
From: ImageShack Support <is-support@imageshack.us>
To: Glenn Porter <ghporter@oooooooo.ooo>
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2008 7:50:33 PM
Subject: Re: Technical Support: Why Is My Image "Intermittently" Banned? (136 words)

Glenn,

Your images are not banned. In fact they are loading fine if you click on your direct link. (you may need to clear your cache to see them). You see the "Domain Banned" message due to this string http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...p0rnstar-name/ and word p0rn in it. It is responsibility of the domain owner or web site admin to comply with generally excepted standards for Family friendly sites.

We suggest somebody from your forum contact us regarding this issue.
--
Sincerely,
ImageShack Support

==
Today---
I am an administrator for this forum. The discussion is about a joke-that using a certain formula generates a pseudonym of the type used by drag queens and sometimes p0rn stars. I'm surprised that your filtering software didn't go any farther than simply identifying a four-character substring in the title of the thread.

For the moment, I'll change the title to something that does not include that particular string in that order, but I'd really like some sort of assurance that my (and many other people's) access won't be automatically blocked by some process that doesn't even verify that it found a hit on a typo.

Glenn Porter

You will note that I have substituted a zero for the 'o' in the "offending" word in this post specifically because I wanted to call attention to how completely idiotic this particular word-find is. I'm also going to change the title of the thread by putting a zero inplace of the 'o'. Stupid bots aren't nearly as bad as stupid humans.

Chongo · Mar 8, 2008, 09:22 AM

That is why I asked to have the word "orgy' removed from the "Hot Babes" thread. The proxy server where I work blocked it, as it does with anything with an "X" in the URL

Oisín · Mar 8, 2008, 09:29 AM

The proxy server where I work blocked it, as it does with anything with an "X" in the URL

Well, that’s a bit sweeping, isn’t it?

design219 · Mar 8, 2008, 09:31 AM

Next they will flag NSFW.

imitchellg5 · Mar 8, 2008, 09:33 AM

I think you spell that "Apology" Glenn

That whole situation is a bit stupid. I agree that stupid bots aren't as bad as stupid humans.

analogika · Mar 8, 2008, 10:56 AM

"generally excepted standards" heh.

Mithras · Mar 8, 2008, 11:30 AM

What's a "topsite", anyway?

Uncle Skeleton · Mar 8, 2008, 12:35 PM

So what, you want them to sit there and manually check all the billions of hyperlinks they must get every hour? How much did you pay for their hosting service?

Oisín · Mar 8, 2008, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

"generally excepted standards" heh.

I wonder if that’s supposed to be “generally accepted standards” or “generally expected standards” ...

Eriamjh · Mar 8, 2008, 04:07 PM

Aploolgy sounds like a skin condition.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 8, 2008, 04:16 PM

No Aploolgy From ImageShack.

You can have my aploogy. I'm tired of scratching my gonads.

turtle777 · Mar 8, 2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

No Aploolgy From ImageShack.

You can have my aploogy. I'm tired of scratching my gonads.

As for ImageDreck

-t

ghporter · Mar 8, 2008, 06:26 PM

Fixed title. Was too ticked off to think straight. Not much better now.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 8, 2008, 06:31 PM

you should make the thread title: "No Apology from ImageSmack"

ghporter · Mar 8, 2008, 08:45 PM

Or "ImageSchmucks" I'm not at all suggesting that they allow people to host just anything with their service, just that when their software says "this is fishy" that a PERSON evaluates it. Or that they write software that looks for more than just a single string match for a FOUR LETTER STRING. Geeeeeezzzzzzz! What a stupid way to handle things.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 8, 2008, 09:05 PM

ImageSchmucks works!

d4nth3m4n · Mar 8, 2008, 10:44 PM

they came first for the communists...
and i didn't speak up because i wasn't a communist.

...

KeriVit · Mar 9, 2008, 12:20 AM

I was wondering what happened to you and, I think , Laminar.

analogika · Mar 9, 2008, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Or "ImageSchmucks" I'm not at all suggesting that they allow people to host just anything with their service, just that when their software says "this is fishy" that a PERSON evaluates it. Or that they write software that looks for more than just a single string match for a FOUR LETTER STRING. Geeeeeezzzzzzz! What a stupid way to handle things.

What you suggest costs money.

You get what you pay for.

ghporter · Mar 9, 2008, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

What you suggest costs money.

You get what you pay for.

I am humbled by your point. But I was also lulled into expecting really good service from them by their years of not messing with me. To have such a silly and stupid thing as this particular four characters lined up together interrupt that service is unsettling.

design219 · Mar 9, 2008, 09:51 AM

I don't use Image Shack, but it looks like they dealt with this situation issue in a timely manner.

It may be a free service, but they must make money someway, selling ads perhaps?

ghporter · Mar 9, 2008, 10:47 AM

"Dealt with" meaning "it's your problem, "you people" shouldn't be using a particular word, even if it was just mentioning it"? Sure. Addressing the fact that just mentioning "that word" could be part of a positive, family-friendly discussion but it's still going to get you an automatic site ban-not so much.

Their software is just stupid because it doesn't do more than match a character string. That should be the first of several steps that either a person or the software should follow. After identifying a potential problem, the rest of the page needs to be looked at. If it's not full of other key words, then that page isn't a problem, right? But they don't bother with that, and make an automated assumption-and I can't help but feel that they make a judgment as well.

BlueSky · Mar 9, 2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Or "ImageSchmucks" I'm not at all suggesting that they allow people to host just anything with their service, just that when their software says "this is fishy" that a PERSON evaluates it. Or that they write software that looks for more than just a single string match for a FOUR LETTER STRING. Geeeeeezzzzzzz! What a stupid way to handle things.

Sometimes there's just no recourse. Sometimes, no matter how valid one's issue, there's just no response. They just don't seem to give a ****, y'know? Tough world we live in.

turtle777 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

What you suggest costs money.

You get what you pay for.

Can't be that much. These kind of things are freely available as open-source libraries published under GPL.

You just need a programming monkey to add them to the script. It's really not that hard and costly.

-t

design219 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

"Dealt with" meaning "it's your problem, "you people" shouldn't be using a particular word, even if it was just mentioning it"?

I meant they dealt with fixing the mistake quickly.

analogika · Mar 9, 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I am humbled by your point. But I was also lulled into expecting really good service from them by their years of not messing with me. To have such a silly and stupid thing as this particular four characters lined up together interrupt that service is unsettling.

True enough.

Mithras · Mar 9, 2008, 01:17 PM

No, but really, what's a "topsite", and why won't ImageShack serve images to one? Does it just mean heavily trafficked?

subego · Mar 9, 2008, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

No, but really, what's a "topsite", and why won't ImageShack serve images to one? Does it just mean heavily trafficked?

Wiki is ur pal:

Topsite is a term used by the warez scene to refer to high-speed FTP servers used by release groups and couriers for distribution, storage and archiving of warez releases.

turtle777 · Mar 9, 2008, 02:50 PM

Well, I just lost all the respect I never had for ImageCrap.

-t