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"}!!!
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.
Comments
So when the title says official, they actually mean "internal api, dug out of javascript source on a google affiliated site"?
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"}!!!
I was hoping this was an API for generating profanity.
Just feed the Outbursts of Everett True into a Markov generator!
Scurries off to his keyboard to start hacking...
Why oh why does profanity ever need to be filtered out?
> 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
Possibly because there's enough of it that it would affect statistical algorithms involving language processing (e.g. google translate)
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
CPAN, as always, to the rescue:
http://search.cpan.org/~abigail/Regexp-Common-2011041701/lib...
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...
> fixed some broken patterns, added check for dick
My stepfather would be most displeased if he couldn't use his name.
5hit, that's a fuhked up list.
basically:
Nice, and it passes a couple of examples of the Scunthorpe Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
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.
A maybe condition is necessary.
see: http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=balls
Yeah. Even with added SFW context:
> http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=tennis%20balls
> {"response": "true"}
It's publicly accessible, but I wouldn't call it official.
server dead, not in google cache
This Google cache link works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:labs.ph...
here is copy of the post: http://pastebin.com/8C3EXMZ7