Add-on to exclude domains from right-click?

[agibsonsw]

Yes, I've checked and can read the cookies from another page. But aren't there already many Parentel Control tools/add-ins out there?

[Hey Jude]

re: comma: I thought it said to put comma after each word you wished to exclude....so I just re-read it and it just said separate with spaces...my error-definitely not yours. I will learn if you keep telling me how I mess it up!

Those sandwiches are delicious, and are nothing more than good-ole sloppy Joes from my days in MD.

[agibsonsw]

My labours have led me to a term of the day: CANONICAL EQUIVALENCE

Unicode contains numerous characters to maintain compatibility with existing standards, some of which are functionally equivalent to other characters or sequences of characters. Because of this, Unicode defines some code point sequences as equivalent. Unicode provides two notions of equivalence: canonical, and compatible, the former being a subset of the latter. For example, the n character followed by the combining ~ character is (canonically and thus compatibly) equivalent to the single Unicode ñ character, while the typographic ligature ff is only compatibly equivalent with the sequence of two f characters.

Unicode normalization is a form of text normalization that transforms equivalent sequences of characters into the same representation, called a normalization form in the Unicode standard, but which will be called simply normal form in this article. For each of the two equivalence notions, Unicode defines two canonical forms, one fully composed, and one fully decomposed, resulting in four normal forms, abbreviated NFC, NFD, NFKC, and NFKD, which are detailed in this article. Unicode normalization is important in Unicode text processing applications, because it affects the semantics of comparing, searching, and sorting Unicode sequences.

(Wikipedia)

[Hey Jude]

Yes, I've checked and can read the cookies from another page. But aren't there already many Parentel Control tools/add-ins out there?

WOT is sufficient for my needs.(In MyWOT I have the option of setting parental control settings) I've taught my grandkids that if WOT shows anything but GREEN they are NOT allowed to click on it. My 6 yr old loves finding the Barbie, Webkinz, Build-a-Bear and other programs from Nick and PBS that she watches, on the web. She does well. I've incorporated the Fences desktop manager to hide all but the icons she is allowed to click on. This has worked very well--even for my hubby. It saves inadvertent problems from random clicking. Naturally, they are only permitted on the XP desktop

PS I will definitely have to use "CANONICAL EQUIVALENCE" in my vocabulary today.

[agibsonsw]

I'm tempted to have a look at Build-a-Bear - sounds intriguing.

You might have to wait until next Sunday before you can use the term

[HansV]

I'm tempted to have a look at Build-a-Bear

We used it to create Jezza, way back in Woody's Lounge...

[BobH]

Add my vote for a feature to black list url's. It is highly unlikely that we will ever get this from google or any other search engine provider, though, because they make money from offering url's. I really, REALLY despise those 'intercept' hits which appear to have satisfied your search argument but really are simply hit gatherers and frequently offer their own lists of largely irrelevant url's.

I think the best hope would be that someone would write a Firefox add on that would allow one to add (and delete) url's from a blacklist that the browser would respond to with a "blacklisted" response - and perhaps a reminder about how to remove an entry from the black list. It would be an even more useful tool if it would filter the google responses - as Hans suggested - and mark them (perhaps with fully blacked out pixels) before displaying them in the google response -- a filter between google and the FF display, as it were.

Perhaps if this were written, and enough people captured screenshots of their black-blotted screens, and those people sent those screenshots to google daily, there might be some motivation for google to allow users to manage search results themselves.

Just call me a conspirator.

[Hey Jude]

I'm tempted to have a look at Build-a-Bear

We used it to create Jezza, way back in Woody's Lounge...

That's so cool

[ChrisGreaves]

We used it to create Jezza, way back in Woody's Lounge...

And if I recall correctly you terminated the thread of complaints at 26 pages.

[Hey Jude]

26 pages of complaints?????

[HansV]

I split off the sequence of posts about remaining logged in to the lounge to a separate thread, see Can't stay logged in (split off from Add-on to exclude ...)

[Amelia43]

... scanning through, say, ten sites to find a good implementation.

How did you filter out garbage sites, such as http://www.experts-exchange" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

I have followed all the technical wizardry in this thread with awe, but wanted to say a word in defence of Experts Exchange. As much as it may annoy many of you to find EE among the results of a Google search, I have been a registered user of EE for several years now, and have found it well worth the investment for solving the occasional technical dilemma, particular the more esoteric ones -so may I suggest that it is not fair or appropriate to call it "garbage."
Dianne

[HansV]

Dianne,

You're completely correct. I find Experts-Exchange's tactics to get people to register annoying, but they do have many excellent participants and high-quality content.

[Amelia43]

Thank you Hans. There are a host of irritants when we use the internet, but we must be fair and decent about reputable and helpful individuals and organisations when we comment on what bugs us most.

[StuartR]

...There are a host of irritants when we use the internet, but we must be fair and decent about reputable and helpful individuals and organisations when we comment on what bugs us most.

Amelia,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The internet is full of unfair and rude statements about people and companies and we try very hard to avoid this kind of thing in Eileen's Lounge.

[ChrisGreaves]

... scanning through, say, ten sites to find a good implementation.

How did you filter out garbage sites, such as http://www.experts-exchange" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

Good Point, and I believe I am the culprit for calling it "garbage".
In my original post my objection was to "paid" rather than content.
Nonetheless, even in jest, my term was incorrect, and I'm glad you called me on it.

[ChrisGreaves]

You can enter words to exclude as well.

Now, how would I, say, Include sites?
Amelia43's comment makes me think that there are cases where we would like to zero in on focused groups and exclude the also-rans.
When I search your script I find one instance of "sSites += ' -site:' + frm.elements.value;".
Would it be sufficient to clone the script as a "sSites += ' +site:' + frm.elements.value;" version to have two FireFox toolbar buttons, one marked "exclude" and one marked "include"?
I'm just asking ....

[HansV]

That won't work. The site: argument without a minus in front of it limits the search to the specified domain/site only. For example

worksheet site:eileenslounge.com

will search for the term worksheet within eileenslounge.com only. You cannot specify two different site:... arguments because they are mutually exclusive

[ChrisGreaves]

If you click on this domain it will remain visible. If you double-click it all domains will become visible.

Brilliant!

[ChrisGreaves]

The site: argument without a minus in front of it limits the search to the specified domain/site only.

Thanks Hans. I suppose we'll be losing Andy to Google any day now ...
OK.
So I could have a FF toolbar button with 'andyEileen which prefaced my Google Search terms with site:eileenslounge.com and then I would have full Google Search capability when searching the lounge.
(This has probably been documented before and gone right over my head ...)