Ask YC: Feedback on my site No-NSFW, The Not-Safe-For-Work Warning System. | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: Feedback on my site No-NSFW, The Not-Safe-For-Work Warning System.

nonsfw.com

5 pointsptm32 comments

No-NSFW is a Firefox extension which warns you if the link that you clicked on is NSFW. NSFW ratings are determined by user-votes cast via the extension.

The extension could be rough around the edges - would appreciate any feedback / bug reports.

Open articleView on HN

I would of went for NOTnsfw.com

It is still available.

http://www.whois.net/dnr/index.php?d=notnsfw&tld=com

I think the double-negative is slightly confusing.

My favorite available one is:

safeftw.com: "safe for the work" OR "safe for the win"

This is the crucial thing:

  Unrated links default to Safe-For-Work.

The extension becomes useless if the ratings don't keep up with content (in other words, if some dude posts a nudie picture of his girlfriend, it's got to be rated before I get to it or your extension doesn't help me).

I could change that, but won't it would get too annoying (for a fresh data-set) ?

Seems like this should be settable. If I want to be uber-cautious, not rated should default to NSFW. Also, maybe a white/black list of domains the user knows to be safe/unsafe for themselves?

That's really my point though: it's not being über-cautious to default to NSFW, because the point is to not get fired for accidentally clicking on a landmine.

If you can't give some sense of confidence that the tool will prevent that scenario, then it's usefulness is limited.

Since you are rewriting all external links on web pages to go through your website, I am exposing my browsing habits to you, right?

Yes, but you could disable it when you don't mind seeing NSFW content.

Still, this is a deal killer.

I understand this would raise red flags for a yc type crowd.

Would the average surfer feel as strongly ?

The average surfer probably would not feel as strongly. The average surfer is correspondingly unlikely to install plugins for Firefox.

Good point :)

If the site contained a strong privacy guarantee on the front page -- basically, no data about individuals' surfing habits will be stored, but aggregate data about overall traffic will be stored unless you opt out -- I would use it if I needed it.

Why do you need to rewrite links to your server? Can your extension not insert JavaScript to do most of this logic client-side?

Actually it uses Javascript to rewrite links.

But the info about links being safe of not are contained in the server links. I could pre-emptively get info about all links, but that would slow down Firefox.

Gotcha. Well maybe you could do this asynchronously, after page load? Once the page is done loading, extension fires off for info about links on the page? Assuming this didn't take to long, it might be doable before they clicked a new link.

Also, extensions have access to cookies per domain? Maybe the extension could use this to cache results for a given page client-side?

I could do that.

I had decided against it earlier due to the potential lag.

Traversing the entire DOM on page load and rewriting all links for large pages would also slow down the page though.

Also rewriting links seems too intrusive for my tastes and means I cant "Copy link location" which I frequently do. I like the idea, but I personally would have just used a single "click" event handler on the entire page using the capturing phase and hijack links to redirect through your site first, rather than doing a rewrite for every link in the dom

..Which in turn means this should be a feature of a plugin like 8aweek, or maybe 8aweek could be a feature of this plugin :)

Did anyone actually install the plugin :) ? I would appreciate any bug reports / feedback.

Instead of rewriting the links, can you asynchronously (without holding up the browser) check all the external links after the page loads and mark all the nsfw links in red or something like that? This way, privacy concerns can be addressed to a certain extent (if you can also don't store the current url that I am on).

[edit:oops, just noticed that Husafan comment says pretty much the same thing.]

I could do that.

or may be offer both? People who want speed but aren't concerned about privacy can use the current set up. May be this can be a monetization idea too... the more private path = $5 per month "a small insurance against getting fired"

Won't that choice become too technical ? And is it acceptable to charge for privacy ?

Well, you have to put it in a different way :-)

IMHO you have to offer the more private option (regardless of your monetization plan) just to get the early adopters who usually are geekier than the masses and hence care about privacy.

Thanks for the inputs.

I had anticipated privacy concerns, but in all fairness, this is an early prototype.

Oh of course. Sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing... Not my intent at all. All the best!

Just tried whitehouse.com and it said it's safe for work. i couldn't figure out how to vote on the site (without using the plugin).

For now you can only vote via the extension. And the site is pretty much empty, so all sites default to safe.

You can screen scrape nsfw.reddit

Is that really an issue? I've stumbled across NSFW sites when I had day jobs and nobody minded. People actually found it kinda funny.

http://corknut.org/worksafer/ dates back to 2005.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com