

Ask YC: Feedback on my site No-NSFW, The Not-Safe-For-Work Warning System. - ptm
http://nonsfw.com/
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.<p>The extension could be rough around the edges - would appreciate any feedback / bug reports.
======
Caligula
I would of went for NOTnsfw.com

It is still available.

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

~~~
antiismist
I think the double-negative is slightly confusing.

My favorite available one is:

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

------
aggieben
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).

~~~
Husafan
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?

~~~
aggieben
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.

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

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

~~~
ten-seven
Still, this is a deal killer.

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

Would the average surfer feel as strongly ?

~~~
0x44
The average surfer probably would not feel as strongly. The average surfer is
correspondingly unlikely to install plugins for Firefox.

~~~
ptm
Good point :)

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

~~~
kirubakaran
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.]

~~~
ptm
I could do that.

~~~
kirubakaran
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"

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

~~~
kirubakaran
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.

~~~
ptm
Thanks for the inputs.

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

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

------
rksprst
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).

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

~~~
kirubakaran
You can screen scrape nsfw.reddit

------
andr
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.

------
inklesspen
<http://corknut.org/worksafer/> dates back to 2005.

