> Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering company
> individual libraries as you'd stated. I think you might be surprised at
You've already proven that this statement is false when you
said you entered the pornographic URL's into your database. Ultimately,
the control of what is filtered and what is not is in the hands of the
individual library or school, not at the level of the filtering company.
> how many incorrectly-categorized pages there are in every filtering
> system I've seen.
With a database of 15 million URLs and counting, it's not surprising that
some are going to be miscategorized. N2H2 does everything they can to
ensure that all URL's they see are correctly categorized based on content.
> N2H2 (the company you mentioned before) employs
> underpaid workers to browse the net and categorize -- they don't seem to
> do a great job.
'underpaid' is an opinion, not a fact. I have no idea what the rate of
pay is for our employees that review the sites, but I do know that they
must throughly search through all aspects of each site in the database and
categorize it based on the content. This includes sites that have pictures
of beastiality, child pornography, snuff photos, and any other nasty
text and imagery you can think of that may be on the web.
> And despite their claims, strong evidence has been
> presented to show that they do use bots to categorize pages, often with
> poor results.
N2H2 admits that they use bots. However, each URL that is found by a
bot, must also go through human review in order to ensure it's content.
These are the facts of which I was talking about when I said your
statements were false. Implying that N2H2 only uses bots to categorize
pages is false. Implying that our employees are underpaid is also false.
Jen
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Aaron Malone wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 03:47:43PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> > There's no reason to argue N2H2's effectiveness or in-effectiveness in
> > this newsgroup. The issue is censorship, not N2H2.
>
> I'm against censorship. I'm against filtering software because a) (see
> the first sentence of this paragraph) and b) I don't think it's an
> effective solution. If we were only allowed to discuss one thing at a
> time, you might have a point, but this is a discussion list. Discussions
> evolve over time.
>
> > Are you really resorting to slandering my company's product in order to
> > prove your point?
>
> Show me where I slandered your product. Keep in mind that you're looking
> for a point in that email where I made *false* statements about the
> product. That's what slander is; don't confuse slander with criticism. I
> simply provided links to independent reports on your product. If you have
> evidence that shows those reviews are inaccurate, by all means present it.
>
> > N2H2 serves over 11,000 schools covering over 9 million students,
> > so for every dissatisfied customer, there are hundreds or thousands more
> > satisfied ones.
>
> I'm very happy for them.
>
> --
> Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Clothes make the man.
> System Administrator Naked people have little or
> Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. no influence on society."
> http://www.semo.net -- Mark Twain
>
> _______________________________________________
> issues mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
>
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
