"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
29 November 2005NSFW: SFW?A perfectly reasonable question from the lovely and talented Samantha Burns:
I don't get why, as bloggers, we sometimes put up the warning, "not work safe" for links to naughty or indecent content.
Um ... isn't anything you look at while you're at work "not work safe"? I mean aren't you supposed to be, uh, WORKING? I have no response to this, except to note that there is "not work safe" and "NOT WORK SAFE", and there is something of a difference. [Preceding link sort of safe for work, changing to NOT SAFE FOR WORK if ... oh, never mind.] Posted at 3:44 PM to BlogorrheaTrackBack: 6:54 PM, 1 December 2005 » The Offensicon Project, Phase 1 from Sean Gleeson PHASE ONE: PROPOSAL AND CALL FOR INPUT The OFFENSICON PROJECT is an attempt to design a small set of emblems to mark hyperlinks which lead to potentially offensive content. Already, many Web authors are marking potentially offensive links with brief......[read more] OH MY GOODNESS! MUST. NEVER. CLICK. ON. NOT WORK SAFE LINKS. EVER. AGAIN. EVER. Excuse me while I claw out my eyes. (Tub Girl gets my vote) Posted by: Donna at 4:52 PM on 29 November 2005I think there should be some indication of why it ain't safe, kind of like they're doing with movies nowadays. You know, it's never just "Rated R" anymore, it's "R (strong langauge, nudity)" or what-have-you. I would find it very helpful if a link said "NSFW (hooters)" or "NSFW (geyser of excrement)." Posted by: Sean Gleeson at 11:43 PM on 29 November 2005Lol, thanks for the link. Posted by: Sam at 1:44 AM on 30 November 2005I'm still trying to decipher "TV-Y7 (fantasy violence)", but it would probably be useful to have an explanation when it's not clear from the context. (A link to, for instance, OrientalWetSnatchQuarterly.com would presumably not need much of an explanation.) They've gone to a quarterly now? Posted by: Sean Gleeson at 9:02 PM on 30 November 2005If it had been on a different schedule, it was before, um, my time. |