Is it secret, or is it safe? October 16, 2002 7:40 AM Subscribe
Please, if your front page post links to anywhere remotely not worksafe, could you make sure this is properly flagged?
I know you're really busy Matt....
A check box could be added to the post page and a little flag graphic or a change in the css for that post to alert people about the worksafe nature would be a possibly solution.
posted by mkelley at 8:17 AM on October 16, 2002
A check box could be added to the post page and a little flag graphic or a change in the css for that post to alert people about the worksafe nature would be a possibly solution.
posted by mkelley at 8:17 AM on October 16, 2002
I'll take a guess and say it was the smocking post. (link not provided since the post'll likely be deleted and it's just plain dumb, not to mention the viruses some users said they contracted from it.)
posted by Tacodog at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by Tacodog at 8:18 AM on October 16, 2002
A check box could be added to the post page and a little flag graphic or a change in the css for that post to alert people about the worksafe nature would be a possibly solution.
But then we'll be tempted to post more nsfw posts. Sure, there are good ones sometimes, but that's really really rare. I'm stretching my guess of the psychological habits of posters if they see a checkbox like that, but I think it would happen.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:20 AM on October 16, 2002
But then we'll be tempted to post more nsfw posts. Sure, there are good ones sometimes, but that's really really rare. I'm stretching my guess of the psychological habits of posters if they see a checkbox like that, but I think it would happen.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:20 AM on October 16, 2002
A check box could be added to the post page and a little flag graphic or a change in the css for that post to alert people about the worksafe nature would be a possibly solution.
Bah, it's the poster's responsibility to flag stuff as unsafe for work. And, considering the mistakes people make (myself definitely included), even with a "Preview" button, I don't think that would help much.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:20 AM on October 16, 2002
Bah, it's the poster's responsibility to flag stuff as unsafe for work. And, considering the mistakes people make (myself definitely included), even with a "Preview" button, I don't think that would help much.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:20 AM on October 16, 2002
I guess it's a catch22, Stan. I would agree, that for some members that would almost be like saying, "We Likey, So Post" while others....very few would actually use it as intended. And yes, it should be the poster's responsibility.
Anyhoo, It was just a suggestion off of the top of my head. People would misuse this and completely fuck it up until they get use to the site....just like they do now.
posted by mkelley at 8:30 AM on October 16, 2002
Anyhoo, It was just a suggestion off of the top of my head. People would misuse this and completely fuck it up until they get use to the site....just like they do now.
posted by mkelley at 8:30 AM on October 16, 2002
i agree salamcis, all saddammn Hussein posts should come with a work friendly caution note.
posted by clavdivs at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 8:43 AM on October 16, 2002
The "not safe for work" checkbox would definitely encourage people to post more of that material here. If that's what we want, fine, but considering Matt's hesitation before running some porn text ads, I'm guessing he doesn't want this to become MetaFark.
posted by rcade at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by rcade at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2002
If salmacis is referring to the PDA post, those pictures don't even come close to what's on the SuicideGirls textad, and that is not labeled 'Work Unfriendly'. Admin Do, User Do.
posted by mischief at 9:00 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by mischief at 9:00 AM on October 16, 2002
mischief, the PDA post says that it is a link to danger porn, and the suicidegirls textad says see them naked. Rather than make a rule, add NSFW checkboxes, or disclaim anything, I'd prefer if people use their heads when posting (warning where necessary) and when reading. Those two examples are as plain as day.
I deleted the phony truth hack post, hopefully that's what prompted this original post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:12 AM on October 16, 2002
I deleted the phony truth hack post, hopefully that's what prompted this original post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:12 AM on October 16, 2002
mmm... smock.
posted by crunchland at 10:31 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by crunchland at 10:31 AM on October 16, 2002
PinkStainlessTail: No, I didn't get in trouble - and I'd like it to stay that way!
Mathowie: Yup, the truth.org was one such example. It's sheer luck that I read the comments first on that one. I didn't mention it specifically, because it's not the first such example.
Danger Porn and Suicide Girls are pretty obvious. There have been some rather less obvious ones.
Clavdivs: haha, and maybe I/P could be flagged as "Not safe for anyone, anywhere"?
posted by salmacis at 10:33 AM on October 16, 2002
Mathowie: Yup, the truth.org was one such example. It's sheer luck that I read the comments first on that one. I didn't mention it specifically, because it's not the first such example.
Danger Porn and Suicide Girls are pretty obvious. There have been some rather less obvious ones.
Clavdivs: haha, and maybe I/P could be flagged as "Not safe for anyone, anywhere"?
posted by salmacis at 10:33 AM on October 16, 2002
How about a category on every FPP, one of which could be "NSFW" or "Fark" or "Newsfilter" or whatever?
posted by blue_beetle at 10:44 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by blue_beetle at 10:44 AM on October 16, 2002
Please, if your front page post links to anywhere remotely not worksafe, could you make sure this is properly flagged?
I didn't see the original post, so could you please define 'not worksafe'?
posted by ginz at 11:14 AM on October 16, 2002
I didn't see the original post, so could you please define 'not worksafe'?
posted by ginz at 11:14 AM on October 16, 2002
I've always wondered this, having been in a work-from-home situation for a few years now: What happens when you're at work, and you click on a NSFW? Do people behind you drop what they're doing? Does the room become deathly silent? Does the IT department blackmail you? I'd love to see some stories of Not Safe For Work getting someone into trouble. This is not out of incredulity, just curiosity.
posted by condour75 at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by condour75 at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2002
Basically, containing nudity. Or anything you wouldn't want your boss walking in and seeing.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2002
when i was in IT we used our web proxy logs as a backup blackmail source. while someone could have been fired for looking up "unsafe" sites (according to the company's web policy) we would generally excuse one or two visits, but anymore after that and we would send a kind reminder.....
posted by mkelley at 11:25 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by mkelley at 11:25 AM on October 16, 2002
condour:
I've always wondered this, having been in a work-from-home situation for a few years now: What happens when you're at work, and you click on a NSFW? Do people behind you drop what they're doing? Does the room become deathly silent? Does the IT department blackmail you? I'd love to see some stories of Not Safe For Work getting someone into trouble. This is not out of incredulity, just curiosity.
there was a file on filepile a while back which was a flash file. it hadn't been marked NSFW in its filename. it started into something seemingly innocent before it loudly displayed "THE BOSS IS A CUNT". so you could get into some trouble.
posted by moz at 11:29 AM on October 16, 2002
I've always wondered this, having been in a work-from-home situation for a few years now: What happens when you're at work, and you click on a NSFW? Do people behind you drop what they're doing? Does the room become deathly silent? Does the IT department blackmail you? I'd love to see some stories of Not Safe For Work getting someone into trouble. This is not out of incredulity, just curiosity.
there was a file on filepile a while back which was a flash file. it hadn't been marked NSFW in its filename. it started into something seemingly innocent before it loudly displayed "THE BOSS IS A CUNT". so you could get into some trouble.
posted by moz at 11:29 AM on October 16, 2002
Basically, containing nudity.
In that case all posts containing nudity should be flagged: 'eew, naked person' = ENP.
So, people living/working under other circumstances can happily click on the link.
posted by ginz at 11:43 AM on October 16, 2002
In that case all posts containing nudity should be flagged: 'eew, naked person' = ENP.
So, people living/working under other circumstances can happily click on the link.
posted by ginz at 11:43 AM on October 16, 2002
I think this is the file to which you are referring, moz. LiquidGeneration.com has a lot of "Sabotage" Flash apps that basically accomplish the same effect. Happy White Seal says "I Love You" is pretty funny as well, in the juvenile trying-to-get-your-friends-fired way.
posted by Danelope at 11:47 AM on October 16, 2002
posted by Danelope at 11:47 AM on October 16, 2002
Danelope : I clicked on the first link and it should be flagged NSA (not safe anywhere). My poor little computer crashed.
So, has anyone clicked on the second link yet?
posted by ginz at 12:00 PM on October 16, 2002
So, has anyone clicked on the second link yet?
posted by ginz at 12:00 PM on October 16, 2002
Um Danelope, you forgot to flag that.
Hi, it's called "context". It was posted in response to moz saying:
there was a file on filepile a while back which was a flash file. it hadn't been marked NSFW in its filename. it started into something seemingly innocent before it loudly displayed "THE BOSS IS A CUNT". so you could get into some trouble.
And there was some doubt in your mind that it was worksafe content? To quote matthowie, "plain as day".
posted by Danelope at 12:18 PM on October 16, 2002
Hi, it's called "context". It was posted in response to moz saying:
there was a file on filepile a while back which was a flash file. it hadn't been marked NSFW in its filename. it started into something seemingly innocent before it loudly displayed "THE BOSS IS A CUNT". so you could get into some trouble.
And there was some doubt in your mind that it was worksafe content? To quote matthowie, "plain as day".
posted by Danelope at 12:18 PM on October 16, 2002
To quote matthowie, "plain as day".
Wow. I think I was channelling Neu for a moment...
<throws self out nearest airlock>
posted by Danelope at 12:21 PM on October 16, 2002
Wow. I think I was channelling Neu for a moment...
<throws self out nearest airlock>
posted by Danelope at 12:21 PM on October 16, 2002
In addition to the "not safe for work", a "includes sound" warning would be nice, for those of us who do not have someone behind them to see the monitor, but who certainly have plenty around them to hear and no fast way of turning speakers off or down. I clicked on the truth.org link and, within seconds, a very loud fart came out of the speaker. Oops.
But then I suppose we should not be reading MeFi at work anyway (I only do it in my lunch-hour, honest).
posted by dg at 3:38 PM on October 16, 2002
But then I suppose we should not be reading MeFi at work anyway (I only do it in my lunch-hour, honest).
posted by dg at 3:38 PM on October 16, 2002
...and then there are those of us who know that probably all of your jobs have a [generally unenforced] "no personal browsing" rule and that you shouldn't be here anyway.
Labelling things is a nice courtesy, sure, but quite frankly, you're being presumptuous to ask everybody to further facilitate your work avoidance.
posted by Su at 7:03 PM on October 16, 2002
Labelling things is a nice courtesy, sure, but quite frankly, you're being presumptuous to ask everybody to further facilitate your work avoidance.
posted by Su at 7:03 PM on October 16, 2002
the correct term is NWS. not NSFW. kthx.
posted by jcterminal at 8:48 PM on October 16, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 8:48 PM on October 16, 2002
get to work, someone has to pay federal taxes to cover my welfare check
posted by Mick at 8:48 PM on October 16, 2002
posted by Mick at 8:48 PM on October 16, 2002
And there was some doubt in your mind that it was worksafe content? To quote matthowie, "plain as day".
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING c : PRACTICAL JOKE d : LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling -- often used in negative construction (via Webster)
I think 1 b (2) about covers it, Danelope :)
Besides, the whole issue is moot, if that's the word I'm looking for. As an employer myself, I think y'all should be working dammit instead of wasting my time on MeFi.
(danelope: see 1 b (2) on this as well)
posted by NekulturnY at 1:19 AM on October 17, 2002
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING c : PRACTICAL JOKE d : LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling -- often used in negative construction (via Webster)
I think 1 b (2) about covers it, Danelope :)
Besides, the whole issue is moot, if that's the word I'm looking for. As an employer myself, I think y'all should be working dammit instead of wasting my time on MeFi.
(danelope: see 1 b (2) on this as well)
posted by NekulturnY at 1:19 AM on October 17, 2002
Sheesh, Danelope! Happy White Seal does a nasty that I've never seen before. It makes my browser window go halfway off to the right of my screen and doesn't let me drag it back, even after closing out and opening IE5 again. Hope a re-boot will cure.
posted by gametone at 4:59 AM on October 17, 2002
posted by gametone at 4:59 AM on October 17, 2002
...and then there are those of us who know that probably all of your jobs have a [generally unenforced] "no personal browsing" rule and that you shouldn't be here anyway.
Labelling things is a nice courtesy, sure, but quite frankly, you're being presumptuous to ask everybody to further facilitate your work avoidance.
What he said. If you choose to surf at work, take responsibility for your choice and make some effort to gauge the links that you click on prior to clicking on them.
posted by rushmc at 7:55 AM on October 17, 2002
Labelling things is a nice courtesy, sure, but quite frankly, you're being presumptuous to ask everybody to further facilitate your work avoidance.
What he said. If you choose to surf at work, take responsibility for your choice and make some effort to gauge the links that you click on prior to clicking on them.
posted by rushmc at 7:55 AM on October 17, 2002
The internet is an adult place. Yeah, if you're gonna browse to the random and unexpected with the sound on or your network monitored and your monitor visible in an open-plan or shared office or cubibox, that's what you get. While diguised links to blow-ups of naughty parts as a link on MetaFilter should be considered rude, it seems to me people give some context.
In the last year, only 22 threads are found labelled this way: work safe, 7; worksafe, 4; work-safe, 4; "NSFW," 7. A bunch of these are labelling questionable-sounding URLs as actually safe for work.
When we post links, we don't know about your network censor, your job security, or your mom on the other side of the room. Only you do.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:47 AM on October 17, 2002
In the last year, only 22 threads are found labelled this way: work safe, 7; worksafe, 4; work-safe, 4; "NSFW," 7. A bunch of these are labelling questionable-sounding URLs as actually safe for work.
When we post links, we don't know about your network censor, your job security, or your mom on the other side of the room. Only you do.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:47 AM on October 17, 2002
NekulturnY: On the Internet, no one can tell you're smirking while posting. Sorry for the overblown response, but there was no indication you were kidding either way. Now don't do it again, or I shall destroy you.
ginz and gametone: Sorry 'bout that. I make no claims as to the technological safety of the Web, but I also hadn't experienced either of those problems with my browser. (Mozilla 1.2, Win2k)
Also, gametone, the browser-not-moving problem is because the window was repositioned while maximized. Start your browser, right-click on the title bar, select "Restore", drag back onto the screen, close the window. Restart the browser. Maximize. Should fix it, I think.
posted by Danelope at 8:58 AM on October 17, 2002
ginz and gametone: Sorry 'bout that. I make no claims as to the technological safety of the Web, but I also hadn't experienced either of those problems with my browser. (Mozilla 1.2, Win2k)
Also, gametone, the browser-not-moving problem is because the window was repositioned while maximized. Start your browser, right-click on the title bar, select "Restore", drag back onto the screen, close the window. Restart the browser. Maximize. Should fix it, I think.
posted by Danelope at 8:58 AM on October 17, 2002
Danelope, I stand corrected. I shall hereby mention on my personal page that unless unequivocal indications exist to the contrary, I am always smirking.
posted by NekulturnY at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2002
posted by NekulturnY at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2002
No worries Danelope. Now don't do it again, or I shall destroy you.
posted by ginz at 9:52 AM on October 17, 2002
posted by ginz at 9:52 AM on October 17, 2002
it started into something seemingly innocent before it loudly displayed "THE BOSS IS A C*NT". so you could get into some trouble.
And quite right too. You're not getting paid to sit on your ass browsing the Web looking at MetaFilter/Filepile/Fark et al. Anyone stupid enough to get suckered in by those Flash tricks at work deserves what they get!
posted by wackybrit at 1:09 PM on October 17, 2002
And quite right too. You're not getting paid to sit on your ass browsing the Web looking at MetaFilter/Filepile/Fark et al. Anyone stupid enough to get suckered in by those Flash tricks at work deserves what they get!
posted by wackybrit at 1:09 PM on October 17, 2002
Danelope, I figured out that work-around that you mention. But the problem remains, even after a re-boot. Whenever I open up IE5 I still have an unmovable window half-way off the right side of my monitor. I have to right click and hit restore to get a full screen.
Hmm this is strange, the move and size options that were grayed out a few minutes ago have returned. And things seem back to normal. Well that was interesting. Hope it doesn't return. Did anyone else foolish enough to look at that damn seal get this effect?
posted by gametone at 1:56 PM on October 17, 2002
Hmm this is strange, the move and size options that were grayed out a few minutes ago have returned. And things seem back to normal. Well that was interesting. Hope it doesn't return. Did anyone else foolish enough to look at that damn seal get this effect?
posted by gametone at 1:56 PM on October 17, 2002
I had no problem, gametone (using IE5).
a "includes sound" warning would be nice,
Ah, I've been called out on this but it will probably happen again. Sorry folks, I do all my surfing with the sound off because my partner sleeps during the day. I could just lie to you and pretend I was deaf, but I am not going to be changing my habits in this regard.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:53 PM on October 17, 2002
a "includes sound" warning would be nice,
Ah, I've been called out on this but it will probably happen again. Sorry folks, I do all my surfing with the sound off because my partner sleeps during the day. I could just lie to you and pretend I was deaf, but I am not going to be changing my habits in this regard.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:53 PM on October 17, 2002
Thanks SLoGravy. Oh well, now that this is off the talk front page I don't imagine this will get any response, but that same creepy problem with the IE window has crept back. Aside from using a non-Gates' browser, does anyone have a clue for me on this?
posted by gametone at 11:44 PM on October 17, 2002
posted by gametone at 11:44 PM on October 17, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
(So, did somebody get you in trouble Salmacis?)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:04 AM on October 16, 2002