I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

There are way more swear words than that…

jromagnoli wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

There are way more swear words than that…

True, true. I know far too many sadly, and it might be hard for the ST to block every single possibility of a swear word out of a link…

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

There are way more swear words than that…

True, true. I know far too many sadly, and it might be hard for the ST to block every single possibility of a swear word out of a link…

they already block every part of a swear word in comments - why not duplicate it for links

miniepicness wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

There are way more swear words than that…

True, true. I know far too many sadly, and it might be hard for the ST to block every single possibility of a swear word out of a link…

they already block every part of a swear word in comments - why not duplicate it for links

That's the thing, if they block the swears that occur ni the links, then the links won't be useable, defeating the purpose.

jromagnoli wrote:

miniepicness wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

There are way more swear words than that…

True, true. I know far too many sadly, and it might be hard for the ST to block every single possibility of a swear word out of a link…

they already block every part of a swear word in comments - why not duplicate it for links

That's the thing, if they block the swears that occur ni the links, then the links won't be useable, defeating the purpose.

no, it sees if the link has a swear using their comment detector, and if it does, it tries again.

The easiest way to fix this would be to exempt the phone number filter in Scratch URLs.

Except for one HUGE problem…

Let's say your number is 314-159-2653 (This is pi, and actually not even a real phone number so don't get mad at me). You could give out your number by linking to this project:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/3141592653/

All you'd have to do is say something like “the number in the URL is my number” and people would get what you meant.

Another fix could be to skip 10 letter URLs and jump to 11 letters, but this presents another problem:
PHONE NUMBERS IN NON-USA COUNTRIES

This is a way bigger problem than it seems…

CellularData wrote:

The easiest way to fix this would be to exempt the phone number filter in Scratch URLs.

Except for one HUGE problem…

Let's say your number is 314-159-2653 (This is pi, and actually not even a real phone number so don't get mad at me). You could give out your number by linking to this project:
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/3141592653/

All you'd have to do is say something like “the number in the URL is my number” and people would get what you meant.

Another fix could be to skip 10 letter URLs and jump to 11 letters, but this presents another problem:
PHONE NUMBERS IN NON-USA COUNTRIES

This is a way bigger problem than it seems…

yeah. maybe skip to 20 characters? but that would take SO MUCH SPACE

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

no, its definitely a glitch
but I could make a topic there with just a link to this

wait.. let me do that!

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

Well, it's a problem, which kinda belongs in the bugs/glitches..

It's not really a glitch, it's more of a problem…

And suggestions is also for problems…

This can go either way, actually - I did say “might” and used question marks, which signals that it's just an idea and not 100% going to happen.

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

Well, it's a problem, which kinda belongs in the bugs/glitches..

I posted a link to it in a topic in suggestions.

60 second rule…

miniepicness wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

Well, it's a problem, which kinda belongs in the bugs/glitches..

I posted a link to it in a topic in suggestions.

60 second rule…

OK.

jromagnoli wrote:

miniepicness wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

Well, it's a problem, which kinda belongs in the bugs/glitches..

I posted a link to it in a topic in suggestions.

60 second rule…

OK.

ya might wanna follow that one too if you followed this one

miniepicness wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

miniepicness wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

CellularData wrote:

I think we need to get the Scratch Team's opinion on this.

(Also, this might belong in suggestions???)

Well, it's a problem, which kinda belongs in the bugs/glitches..

I posted a link to it in a topic in suggestions.

60 second rule…

OK.

ya might wanna follow that one too if you followed this one

Alright, on it.

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

The easiest way is to block out vowels (and 0, 1 and l if you really need to). You might still get the consonants from a swear word in there but they wouldn't really be noticed when they're mixed in with a random string.

stickfiregames wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

The easiest way is to block out vowels (and 0, 1 and l if you really need to). You might still get the consonants from a swear word in there but they wouldn't really be noticed when they're mixed in with a random string.

That would actually work pretty well. And it's also a small chance of even getting a swear word when you think about it.



EDIT: I just realized one of my unreleased projects has 818 in it

stickfiregames wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

The easiest way is to block out vowels (and 0, 1 and l if you really need to). You might still get the consonants from a swear word in there but they wouldn't really be noticed when they're mixed in with a random string.

Y is a vowel, right?
it makes the sound yugh
and makes the sound (insert long i)

miniepicness wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

Remix-the-Dragon wrote:

I do suppose if we added letters, we could keep out letters like ‘F’, so it wouldn't end up being a bad word..

The easiest way is to block out vowels (and 0, 1 and l if you really need to). You might still get the consonants from a swear word in there but they wouldn't really be noticed when they're mixed in with a random string.

Y is a vowel, right?
it makes the sound yugh
and makes the sound (insert long i)

It's a vowel if it's pronounced like one. For the purposes of this it would probably always count as one just in case.