Google’s Official Profanity API(labs.phurix.net)

41 pointsby hm2kvor 15 Jahren22 comments

labs.phurix.net

http://labs.phurix.net/posts/googles-official-profanity-api

11 comments

cschneidvor 15 Jahren

So when the title says official, they actually mean "internal api, dug out of javascript source on a google affiliated site"?

snorkelvor 15 Jahren

What the {"response": "true"} is this {"response": "true"} thing? A {"response": "true"} cache page? Are you {"response": "true"} {"response": "true"} me?! Do you really need a {"response": "true"} JSON API to do the work of a stupid {"response": "true"} array lookup? {"response": "true"}!!!

cagefacevor 15 Jahren

I was hoping this was an API for generating profanity.

ldamerowvor 15 Jahren

Just feed the Outbursts of Everett True into a Markov generator!

cagefacevor 15 Jahren

Scurries off to his keyboard to start hacking...

schrototovor 15 Jahren

Why oh why does profanity ever need to be filtered out?

maweavervor 15 Jahren

> you could try using the Google Profanity API to avoid displaying ads on pages that contain profanities

I assume that must be a requirement of some ad networks

algoriasvor 15 Jahren

Possibly because there's enough of it that it would affect statistical algorithms involving language processing (e.g. google translate)

mithalervor 15 Jahren

latchvor 15 Jahren

I once tried to create a list of basic patterns...always thought it'd be more useful than it turned out to be:

https://github.com/mogade/badwords/blob/master/en.txt

peteretepvor 15 Jahren

CPAN, as always, to the rescue:

http://search.cpan.org/~abigail/Regexp-Common-2011041701/lib...

vbarvor 15 Jahren

It's repetitive - when you're checking e.g. for (ph|f)u(c|k|ck|q), there's no need to check cyb[e3]r(ph|f)u(c|k|ck|q) as well...

pavel_lishinvor 15 Jahren

> fixed some broken patterns, added check for dick

My stepfather would be most displeased if he couldn't use his name.

Terrettavor 15 Jahren

5hit, that's a fuhked up list.

franzevor 15 Jahren

basically:

  http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=xxx

mootothemaxvor 15 Jahren

Nice, and it passes a couple of examples of the Scunthorpe Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

click170vor 15 Jahren

My first thought was "Oh, I wonder if that means the spellcheck on my smartphone will stop substituting 'duck' when I meant to type something more profane." But after reading the article, I guess not.

mhuntervor 15 Jahren

A maybe condition is necessary.

see: http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=balls

MasterScratvor 15 Jahren

Yeah. Even with added SFW context:

> http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=tennis%20balls

> {"response": "true"}

pornelvor 15 Jahren

It's publicly accessible, but I wouldn't call it official.

5hvor 15 Jahren

server dead, not in google cache

mootothemaxvor 15 Jahren

This Google cache link works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:labs.ph...

gary4garvor 15 Jahren

here is copy of the post: http://pastebin.com/8C3EXMZ7