Greasy Fork

all purpose script marked as containing adult content

I can understand such marks for scripts made especially to enhance some pornsite but what about all purpose scripts? Why would you mark a script as adult if it matches all http://* for example? (yes, of course it would also work on adult websites but it's not the purpose of the script)

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/109-handy-image

Your script has been marked as having adult content.

My script isn't especially made for adult websites (and of course has no adult content itself), it is made for all kind of image-hosting sites (mostly non-adult or user-filled I believe), but I can't really report this mark to a moderator because my script does work for some site that contains adult content.

Maybe it'd be better to just hide websites marked as adult from "works on:" list when user doesn't want those?

What do you think?

This is kind of a weird situation, because while you say this is an "all-purpose" script, it does specifically enumerate sites that it applies to. I'm struggling to think of a way to handle this in general.

@Owyn, if you convert those site-includes to regexps they won't be listed on script info page and won't confuse the advertising bots, so your script may be unmarked. Of course the script description page should not contain any links to those sites as well. And version history page.

@JasonBarnabe

a way to handle this in general.

That's that I'm talking about, if problem is in just that "works on:" list then maybe it should be just hidden then for users without adult option? (non-adults would find the script for non-adult websites they search for and adults will be able to find it for any website they want)

@wOxxOm, yes, I could remove all @includes from my script and leave just http://* and it would work without any changes but that would also make script run on unwanted sites where it have nothing to do, plus that would just mean obfuscation of the script

@Owyn, how "converting only the affected includes (adult sites) to regexps" became "http://*" or "obfuscation"? I can't see the connection.

@wOxxOm

how "converting only the affected includes (adult sites) to regexps" became "http://*" or "obfuscation"?

obfuscation - rewriting code trying to hide something - and that's what we are doing here, rewriting script includes to hide specific information (websites) from being directly shown to user so he won't notice it (and so moderator won't notice it and mark script as adult).

plus what exactly are 'adult websites'? sites specifically made for adult material or how it is written in rules "sites containing adult material"? I bet 99% of image hostings have such material simply because those are filled with user-generated content

You could do what I did and create an extension script and move all the 18+ stuff there (Well at least the obvious offenders) and give people the link. That might help.

I say might coz I'm still waiting for the mods to clear my unmark request

obfuscation - rewriting code trying to hide something - and that's what we are doing here, rewriting script includes to hide specific information (websites) from being directly shown to user so he won't notice it (and so moderator won't notice it and mark script as adult).

That's exaggeration. Regexp conversion is not intended to "fool" users or moderators but only to remove the adult site links from the link list because the advertisement network bots mark the entire site as having adult content when any of such links are discovered. My point is that those links being listed on the script info page don't add anything useful to your script. Like nothing.

My point is that those links being listed on the script info page don't add anything useful to your script. Like nothing.

people can search scripts which work on specific websites when they want to find scripts especially for a website they want and that's where those are useful.

advertisement network bots mark the entire site as having adult content when any of such links are discovered. My point is that those links being listed on the script info page don't add anything useful to your script.

So lets just mark links and hide them instead. created a github request: - https://github.com/JasonBarnabe/greasyfork/issues/381

The problem with simply hiding the links is that there will be scripts out there that really are for adult sites, but have some includes that:

- Are adult content, but not identified as such by Greasy Fork
- Are not adult content, but a really minor part of the script
- Are regexps and Greasy Fork can't figure out what it's for

What you're proposing would work for your script, but not these.

What you're proposing would work for your script, but not these.

I believe you got it wrong, - I'm not for removing adult marks for scripts as such, I'm only for hiding links instead of full scripts, marks should stay and be distributed by moderators and script-authors for their scripts.

If you have a script called MyPornBuster, with includes of nasty-gifs.org, nudy-nudes.net, and innocent-site.com, just hiding the two includes still leaves you with a script called MyPornBuster, and that's not what I want. It works OK for a script like yours, so perhaps it's just a matter of differentiating the two cases.

If you have a script called MyPornBuster

Then either author would mark it as adult or a moderator when he sees it, nothing would be different from how it is now,

if you don't like the proportion of bad to innocent sites ratio in script which would automatically mark script as adult then it's all up to you to change it to "75% matches should be safe" or some other number (instead of "just 1 safe @match is enough for script to be safe how you described it above) to ease the manual work of moderators against authors who don't mark their scripts appropriately

Well what I think I'll do is allow a "not adult" report if there's some high proportion of OK sites to not OK. So it would still default to marked as adult, but you'd have recourse. And then when marked it would just not show the adult sites on GF.

I ran a query to see the kind of scripts that would be identified by the 75% rule. They actually appear mostly to be cases where GF doesn't even know the sites they affect are adult.

https://greasyfork.org/scripts/4005
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/109
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/3008
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/4903
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/2641
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/9044
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/692
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/145
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/1319
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/2106
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/10829
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/10985
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/102
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/248
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/1601
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/5433
https://greasyfork.org/scripts/10038

then 100% rule would be better after all, would it? cause people with 'pornbuster's don't usually include 'innocent-site's to work on

Well what I think I'll do is allow a "not adult" report if there's some high proportion of OK sites to not OK. So it would still default to marked as adult, but you'd have recourse. And then when marked it would just not show the adult sites on GF.

@JasonBarnabe, I ticked the checkbox "This script does not contain adult content and is not for a site that contains adult content." like a week ago but it doesn't seem like something is happening after that, script is still not shown on greasyfork and I received no response about me clicking that mark, am I doing something not right?

@Owyn:

This script is marked as adult content because it's for donmai.us, gelbooru.com, konachan.com, motherless.com, photosex.biz, and sankakucomplex.com.

The author requested it not be marked as adult content on 2015-09-07 14:18:34 UTC, but we can't do that!

The only thing I can do in the Mark tab for moderators is to clear the request, but I can't unmark the script.

Well what I think I'll do is allow a "not adult" report if there's some high proportion of OK sites to not OK. So it would still default to marked as adult, but you'd have recourse. And then when marked it would just not show the adult sites on GF.

@wOxxOm:

This script is marked as adult content because it's for donmai.us, gelbooru.com, konachan.com, motherless.com, photosex.biz, and sankakucomplex.com.

script works on ~737 sites, 6 sites you mentioned makes less than 1%, shouldn't 99% to 1% be considered a "high proportion of OK sites to not OK" ?

I haven't yet implemented a solution for this particular issue.

After a recent large-scale addition to the adult content site list, there are now a whole lot more sites matching for this script. So it's pretty moot at this point - this will be available on sleazy only.

there are now a whole lot more sites matching for this script

156 to be exact.

this will be available on sleazy only.

It's a pity.

@Owyn, I'd like to reiterate my point at a different angle: as a user I think your script is like a musthave built-in functionality along with MPIV (and it is applied to all sites) so my point is it's okay if it will be applied by default to all sites by omitting all includes and matches so that the behavior is determined by whether the page has necessary elements. After all there is such thing as user excludes which works at least in Tampermonkey.

@wOxxOm, well at least google would find it at sleazy I hope. Sadly I don't want to obfuscate my script to hide @match lines and apply to all sites. I like how it works only when needed avoiding conflicts and saving resources a bit. And users won't have to worry that some script would run on their sensitive websites like banks etc. (adsbypasser script which work on all exactly same image sites as my script but obfuscated that it checks for matches inside script itself and not via @match lines is marked as safe for example) I really thought the whole point of "adult" marking was to really mark "adult" scripts (pornbusters etc) and not just to follow bureaucratic rules making people hide on which sites their script runs from users

156

still makes about 20%

@Owyn, well, the only point of adult scripts separation is to make it possible to run the advertisements to pay the bills. As for banking sites if anyone is concerned about security they will add global exception in tampermonkey/greasmonkey so that none of the userscripts will work there. And the really concerned users would have a separate browser for that or open an incognito window in Chrome. The other points you listed don't concern me as a user (lower resources usage? like 0 instead of 0.0000001%? do I care? no)

@wOxxOm

the only point of adult scripts separation is to make it possible to run the advertisements to pay the bills.

so why not just remove adult site links from "works on" ? that would give the desired result

I agree. If a general purpose script has at least one non-adult site in includes/matches then it should be also shown on main GF site with just these filtered sites. Current binary logic of all-or-nothing (greasy/sleazy) isn't good for humans.

The problems are:

1. Differentiating between all-purpose scripts with some adult sites and adult site scripts with some sites that have not been identified as adult sites yet.
2. Making sure users know which sites the script runs on. I was OK with it if it was just a few, but now it's a whole lot.

1. moderators will differentiate and in case of doubt it can be discussed, no problem
2. those who are concerned about this will check the code and pay attention to their script manager's install dialog, no problem. Moreover GreasyFork doesn't show regexps so the site list is just a minor commodity to facilitate searching, not a vital security measure.

1. Differentiating between all-purpose scripts with some adult sites and adult site scripts with some sites that have not been identified as adult sites yet.

why is that even a problem if the only purpose is to make google think greasyfork has no adult material?

• yes, moderators.

1. Making sure users know which sites the script runs on. I was OK with it if it was just a few, but now it's a whole lot.

there are already scripts which works on http://* and check if they should work on a website inside itself and not via @match , and that's not currently considered a problem as far as I know. (adsbypasser), I could do that too easily removing all @match lines cuz I too check for domains to see if script should work now.

those who are concerned about this will check the code and pay attention to their script manager's install dialog, no problem.

If Greasy Fork is showing a list, people will assume it's correct.

Moreover GreasyFork doesn't show regexps

Yes it does...

Differentiating between all-purpose scripts with some adult sites and adult site scripts with some sites that have not been identified as adult sites yet.

why is that even a problem if the only purpose is to make google think greasyfork has no adult material?

Because then it would still show the adult sites that have yet to be identified.

If Greasy Fork is showing a list, people will assume it's correct.

It's already not correct if there are too many hosts, people have to expand the list to see the correct full list, in this situation a simple text saying that they would have to look at installation screen to see correct list, or at source code page would do the thing

or that x (10 for example) sites are hidden as adult - please register to see those.