March 17, 2004
Why I Hate Keyword Blocking
Here's a good example of what is wrong with keyword blocking. Flesh Public Library in Ohio blocked their own domain because they had keyword blocking turned on. Here's the story. They use Net Nanny which does allow for keyword blocking to be disabled and it should be....always. Keyword blocking never works. Maaaaaybe it would be acceptable with a very very very short list of words to block but even then, I don't recommend it.
The truly sad thing about this story is that the library chose to change the URL to their website instead of turning off keyword blocking! What about taking the word "flesh" out of the keyword list! Deargod, is this what libraries are doing out there?????
By the way, I picked this story up from the Travelin' Librarian's weblog.
Posted by Lori at 8:20 AM | Permalink
Comments
Hi Lori
Your right to hate key word blocking. It is like hateing Windows 3.1 and the 14.5 K modem. Key word blocking was the level of thinking and technology in 1995. If that is what I was using I'd hate them too.
With key word blocking if you use the word ?sex? you block Sussex england.
And you have just writen about what can happen if you use the word ?flesh?. There are many other stories like this at well ...breast and breast cancer etc eetc etc.. This became readily apparent in 1995.
?Key word? blocking is not ?maaaaybe? acceptable in some cases ...it is totally unacceptable.
Actually I'm stunned to think that Net Nanny is using key word blocking after being in business for nine years. It does not seem concievable to me they would still be doing this, however, I'll put it in the categorie of OK if you say so . I assume you'v done your homework ( after all you wrote the book) and I certainly don't know what Net Nanny is doing nor am I an apologist for the industry.
However technology has evolved(for some). Windows has evolved to XP, the 14.5 K modem has evolved to high speed band width and for IF-2K key word blocking has evolved to ?the phrase filter?.
From the comments and assumptions displayed in this blog it may be possible that the term ?phrase filter? and ?key word blocking? are confused. I shall take a moment to explain the concept of our phrase filter . There is a big difference between IF-2K's ?phrase filter? and ?key word blocking?
I will use the **** for some words because I don't want the ?key word blocking? filters to block your blog and not because I don't think your readers can handle the ?aweful truth?.
Here is the concept we have evolved..
Something has to do something to something.
________ _______ ________
That is the essence of the phrase filter.
So example.
(blond, redhead, dog, gay man, etc, etc) [***** ,etc, etc, etc,] a big {****,etc etc etc}
Craft the permutations and combinations of these elements and you have a porn ?phrase filter?. And if a page has these elements you are very likely correct about the nature of the page.
This concept seems to work the best. Our next build will most likely contain nothing else other then this concept in the phrase filter. We still use some terms like ?free porn? but I'm thinking of illiminating them in the next build.
something does something to something ...that is the formula for a phrase filter.
________ ________ _________
Net Nanny you can have this one on me.
and if that is too imperfect well there is always the ?click through? feature.
Posted by: Bob Turner | March 17, 2004 6:32 PM
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your overview of phrase filters. And as you rightly stated, when I say keyword blocking, I'm well aware of the difference between that simplistic technology (as I call it in my book) and content analysis (which would involve your type of phrase filtering).
Net Nanny provides keyword blocking as an option which is why I recommend in my best practices area to always turn it off. I believe NN's thinking is that some might want to supplement the URL filter which they recognize will never be comprehensive on its own (but does it need to be --- I always ask?).
Posted by: Lori | March 18, 2004 7:00 AM
Hi Lori'
I'm relieved to here that..and also thanks for the term ? content analysis? we've been calling it a ?phrase filter?....from now on I guesses it should be a ?context analytical phrase filter?....
re: ?
(but does it need to be --- I always ask?).
From my point of view as a filter producer it all depends on what the client wants and what trade offs they are willing to make. If ? intellectual freedom? is a priority for libraries than the answer is probably...
?No...it doesn't need to be comprehensive...it merely needs to be ?perceived as an application of due diligence?
To put that in perspective we have clients that if you brought up ?intellectual freedom? as a consideration, their response would likely be ?whats that? or ?are you nuts??
Libraries are a special case. That is for sure.
Posted by: Bob Turner | March 18, 2004 1:58 PM
rumors in one of my classes noted that even the term 'mars exploration' wouldn't process due to their filters.
seems it picked up on the sex in the middle of that phrase.
xo,
matthew
Posted by: matthew | March 22, 2004 8:09 AM
it would also choke on "assinine" because of the first 3 letters...
Posted by: Bob Turner | March 22, 2004 10:18 AM