It's hard to describe it, but to see what I mean, click here: https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/874345976/.

Scary, right? This can be used to trick people; so why isn't this filtered?

Edit: I mean masking links behind fake “text” links, like this:

I don't mean rickrolls.

i_eat_coffee wrote:

(#1)
It's hard to describe it, but to see what I mean, click here: https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/874345976/.

Scary, right? This can be used to trick people; so why isn't this filtered?

Because the filterbot doesn't check hyperlinks.

Zydrolic wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

(#1)
It's hard to describe it, but to see what I mean, click here: https://scratch-mit-edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/projects/874345976/.

Scary, right? This can be used to trick people; so why isn't this filtered?

Because the filterbot doesn't check hyperlinks.

Okay, but why not? That's what I am asking.

i_eat_coffee wrote:

(#3)
Okay, but why not? That's what I am asking.

The filterbot cannot detect this because it wasn't programmed to.
It hasn't been programmed to check if a hyperlink matches the link or not.
You can hover over links and check the bottom left corner to see the actual link without quoting.

Zydrolic wrote:

i_eat_coffee wrote:

(#3)
Okay, but why not? That's what I am asking.

The filterbot cannot detect this because it wasn't programmed to.
It hasn't been programmed to check if a hyperlink matches the link or not.
You can hover over links and check the bottom left corner to see the actual link without quoting.

Yeah, but that's a still big yikes. I didn't even know it was possible to do that, and not all Scratchers are going to have the common sense to check the actual link address. I think the filterbot ought to be reprogrammed, maybe not as a high priority, but as @i_eat_coffee pointed out this is kinda scary.

probably because the ST didn't think of detecting that. you can probably suggest it in the Suggestions forum

The forum was built on third party software, so we're limited on how far we can modify the forum's word filter (which is to say, unfortunately not much). At some point in the future, we plan on heavily revamping the forums, which does include incorporating the main site filter into it.

cheddargirl wrote:

(#7)
The forum was built on third party software, so we're limited on how far we can modify the forum's word filter (which is to say, unfortunately not much). At some point in the future, we plan on heavily revamping the forums, which does include incorporating the main site filter into it.

Apologies for the dumb question, but this does mean a full-on wipe(and archive{Maybe not by ST as a whole though like with 1.x}) of the current Forums, right?

Zydrolic wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

(#7)
The forum was built on third party software, so we're limited on how far we can modify the forum's word filter (which is to say, unfortunately not much). At some point in the future, we plan on heavily revamping the forums, which does include incorporating the main site filter into it.

Apologies for the dumb question, but this does mean a full-on wipe(and archive{Maybe not by ST as a whole though like with 1.x}) of the current Forums, right?

High certainty of a full-on wipe and archive. The forums is an odd sore spot for us design and engineering-wise because, while it is the central hub for getting help, it's also the most resource-heavy despite low usage. Part of this has to do with some of the anti-SEO-spam measures in place, which hasn't aged well and would be better incorporated into the main site filter at some point (which, while sometimes it does have false positives, is much more smarter at picking up variants of spam).

cheddargirl wrote:

(#9)
High certainty of a full-on wipe and archive. The forums is an odd sore spot for us design and engineering-wise because, while it is the central hub for getting help, it's also the most resource-heavy despite low usage. Part of this has to do with some of the anti-SEO-spam measures in place, which hasn't aged well and would be better incorporated into the main site filter at some point (which, while sometimes it does have false positives, is much more smarter at picking up variants of spam).

Fair enough, especially the resource-heavy part mostly because people have been going out of their ways (Or just a singular person) into swearing on the Forums.
Apologies for my dumb question, got curious.