AwesomeShawn wrote:

Marb1 wrote:

Here's what I think.

Let's say the comment was “I really like airplanes!”, and “plan” was a bad word.
Telling you/highlighting which word/words the bad word appeared in (e.g. “The word ‘airplane’ set off the filter, so please try using different words.”) - Good because the kid would not explicitly get the bad word pointed out to them, and if he didn't already know the word he probably wouldn't learn it.

So I support telling you (or highlighting) which word (or words) set it off.

Support

The problem is what if someone actually set off the filter intentionally? Then it would display a bad word. I am thinking maybe it just uses highlight and says “The highlighted word/words set off the filter, so please try using different words.” then that would be better.

Support if implemented like above person said.

In a dupe I said
Support, for all the reasons everyone else (the people who supported) said.

That support still stands.

Charles12310 wrote:

kawaiicatlover wrote:

I half-support this. I agree it is very annoying when the bad word detector goes of randomly! The only problem with this suggestion is if it shows the bad word then kids might learn new bad words from it.

Why would kids learn new bad words if they typed it?

It coud be that they were typing some random letters for fun in a project description:

dfhygvuyfdbvhfbhjsdnhiujngfsibvusihjbgfshbhbgfbhdinghvjxbhjsbhbmffgyv

for example ‘ding’ was a bad word, and that kid didn't know that, and Scratch highlighted it.

dfhygvuyfdbvhfbhjsdnhiujngfsibvusihjbgfshbhbgfbhdinghvjxbhjsbhbmffgyv

I personally have had a couple close scrapes (once I misspelled “cant”) so even if someone made a simple misspelling like I did, they could get caught by the bad word detector and learn what it means. Or if someone thinks the wrong spelling is actually the right way to type it.
Imagine “cot” is a bad word. This little kid is trying to type out “Scratch cat is so cool!”

Little kid wrote:

Scratch cot is so cool!

Bad word detector wrote:

Uh oh, looks like you said a bad word.

Scratch cot is so cool!

Little kid wrote:

Hey mommy/daddy, what does cot mean?

Mommy/daddy wrote:

Hey, where'd you learn that?

Little kid wrote:

Scratch.

Sort of an artificial example but it gets the point across.

So no support.

Birdlegs wrote:

I think it should highlight the word instead of type it out. It would be more unassuming, considering an official GUI with sensitive words in it would be… Well, sensitive.

Support for this!

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

I personally have had a couple close scrapes (once I misspelled “cant”) so even if someone made a simple misspelling like I did, they could get caught by the bad word detector and learn what it means. Or if someone thinks the wrong spelling is actually the right way to type it.
Imagine “cot” is a bad word. This little kid is trying to type out “Scratch cat is so cool!”
-snip-

So no support.

Again, this is a ridiculous hypothetical situation. It's already extremely unlikely for something like this to happen in the first place, and then the assumption that the user won't just correct their message and forget about it is another huge stretch. Is a 0.00000000001% chance really worth inconveniencing the entire remaining userbase for?

Typos/Mistakes can happen, so I don’t think this is the best idea. Imagine this playing out
Little kid: “Mom what does *insert bad word here* mean?”
Mom: “where did you find that?”
Little kid: “on Scratch”
then the mom sends a complaint to the ST about this, and if enough people do it then either
a. the feature gets removed
b. the site gets shut down

the2000 wrote:

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

I personally have had a couple close scrapes (once I misspelled “cant”) so even if someone made a simple misspelling like I did, they could get caught by the bad word detector and learn what it means. Or if someone thinks the wrong spelling is actually the right way to type it.
Imagine “cot” is a bad word. This little kid is trying to type out “Scratch cat is so cool!”
-snip-

So no support.

Again, this is a ridiculous hypothetical situation. It's already extremely unlikely for something like this to happen in the first place, and then the assumption that the user won't just correct their message and forget about it is another huge stretch. Is a 0.00000000001% chance really worth inconveniencing the entire remaining userbase for?

well accidents will happen, and if this feature is ever implemented I don’t think it’ll last long before parents start sending emails about it

What if at first, it didn't show it, but then you could click a button that would then highlight it?

CoolLionMan wrote:

the2000 wrote:

Again, this is a ridiculous hypothetical situation. It's already extremely unlikely for something like this to happen in the first place, and then the assumption that the user won't just correct their message and forget about it is another huge stretch. Is a 0.00000000001% chance really worth inconveniencing the entire remaining userbase for?

well accidents will happen, and if this feature is ever implemented I don’t think it’ll last long before parents start sending emails about it

[citation needed]

TEXT REMOVED

all the among us words ( u oof )

forever
if <bad word (anything lol) detected> then 
you did a bad word
  

else
sent
end
end

when green flag clicked
forever
set (your text) to (anything lol)
end

No support because this could happen:

If meow was a bad word, a kid could write:

"If you ask me, owls are the best animal ever!"

And the detector could say:



and it would be showing the kid the bad language.

imagine damnn, crapp, frick were bad, and then some kid wrote this:
damnn it I wouldn't like this fricking crappy project
then bad word detector says

bad word detector wrote:

looks like the words: damnn, crapp, frick were bad words - remember to be respectful and change these types of message[/quote

kid wrote:

mommy? daddy? what does damnn crapp and frick really mean?

mom and dad wrote:

where'd you get those from?

kid wrote:

scratch

mom and dad wrote:

le gasp

I dont think this is good idea
+0

I think that instead of explicitly stating which words are contained in the message, highlighting the troubled area without saying why it's troubled would be much better as it still tells why the message is not getting sent and it also doesn't teach children new words to use.

Support for highlighting the word being detected, so you know what's going on when the bad word detector randomly goes off on your comment.

No support. A young scratcher could type xyz (which im just using to represent bad word) and it would say “xyz is a bad word” then they would google define xyz or something like that, and they know what it means.

Also, please type your posts not in title case. It's annoying to read.

I support this, and made a discussion before without realising this is here.

I am sure this has being posted before me and this is very big problem with this suggestion what if some learned a bad word so let say cat and meow where bad words so:

Somone wrote:

cant you be kmeow that today is so much fun

The filter bot wrote:

Meow and cat are bad words

Someone wrote:

Mum and dad what does cat and meow mean?

Someone's Mum and dad wrote:

Where did you learn these bad words?

Someone wrote:

Scratch

Someone's Mum and dad wrote:

*Sends email to the st*

*1 day later*

ST wrote:

We should of not added this as we got 7 emalls about this about there children learning bad words because of the filter bot.*Removes show what is bad with your comment*

However the children still know the bad words.