It would be nice to have a catalog of "clean sites". I am referrring to those that no one with a little common sense would object to. Places any child, adult, teacher or even a Nun could visit without being offended. Subcategories could be: Educational, Government, Industry, etc. I am taking about the "good stuff" in the WWW.
32 Comments
32 Comments
Who voted for this idea
- masa
- ahoier
- shpigford
- Jonathan Ford
- Nathan
- ab-imports
- Chris
- drsox
- gamer8519
- cooner750
- skypuppy
- dauphin
- filter
- reeveorama
- ataub2qf
- dcockrell
- giantsfanatic
- kurtisnelson
- spsdns
- stemount
- Anthony Timberlake
- jon335
- Paul
- mtdanielson
- sirber
- Nick
- dward
- Michael
- networkjedi
- Ulrich
- tjg50311
- jbanks
- alphageek
- brianwj
- sdot
- Andrew
- kwebster
- richcasto
- Atte
- doomboyt
- Tim Casey
- Jared Petry
- chris24
- compneo
- billso
- nukeglus
- karlhaworth
- mspy2
- g4mby
- markxing
Comments
If that is so, that makes more sense and is a very good idea!
To be able to perform a 'DENY ALL', then ALLOW CLEANSITES would be very useful indeed.
I already have this in place on some of our training suites (using Squid), but am regularly having to update the CLEANSITE category.
To have OPENDNS provide this as a DNS feature would be incredibly useful.
» "Subcategories could be: Educational, Government, Industry, etc."
I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. We already have categories for Educational Institutions and Government so if they're NOT blocked then you'll see those sites listed within those categories. There wouldn't be a need for the separate 'clean sites' category.
So you want a default whitelist that can get domains added in the same way as the other categories?
written by stalinvlad 609 days ago
Rating: 1
| Rate Comment:
Yeah, they want a whitelist (where is all the PC outrage when you need it) instead of a blacklist
written by cleanmedia 604 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
Yes. This is a good idea. A substitute to white lists. It means, that no possible category of users would have any objections to these sites. Comparable to a category bundle for the age of small babies. (nothing to do with governance or schools)
written by revolutionmaster 603 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
this should be merged with http://ideabank.opendns.com/story.php?title=Only_Whitelist
written by brettschulte 564 days ago
Rating: 1
| Rate Comment:
The is kind of backwards isn't it? The idea is that everything is GOOD unless blocked. Your suggesting that everything is BAD except what's white listed. It's an impossibly problematic task. Your hear is in th right place but it's a bad idea.
No this isn't backwards. You're under the assumption that if it isn't tagged as bad then it must be good. That simply is not the case. If it was then there would be no need for additional domain tagging by surfers because everything would automatically be already tagged as good.
The problem I see with this is that "good" is too subjective and general. I suggest a more explicit category: G-rated, and maybe in addition a G6 rating meaning it's good for 6 years old and younger.
Let me just add ... this is the best idea in the idea bank. Nothing else comes close. It seems so obvious too - I can't believe it hasn't come up before. I just hope they implement it before wasting time on some of the other ideas that
daid ar york
How do you determine "clean" sites? Everyone has different opinions. Also, I'm almost positive there are both good and bad sites in any of the categories. Blocking everything, but allowing a few categories, doesn't make sense. For example, which of the current categories would you allow?
To me, this idea is something a user would have to do themself... build their own whitelist.
What more do you want OpenDNS to do... besides determining a category, they should now decide if it is a good or bad site too? What do you expect them to do with a site like youtube.com - good or bad? If you ask 100 people, I bet 50 of them say block it and 50 will say allow it.
These are personal decisions. I don't think you could ever create a list that would satisfy everybody. If you could, then it might only have a few hundred sites on it.
I don't mean to be so negative about this, but I can see a lot of problems developing with it.
Just my opinions, of course.
A whitelist for different levels is what I need, and I have tried to implement it in various ways but failed miserably because it is a pain to configure. If the openDNS team and community does it, it would succeed - I then would let my 5 year old son surf without my supervision, knowing that only the 'allowed' sites for his age categories are accessible. Blacklisting is safe enough for me, but not for my children.
written by OpenDNS User 518 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
Your 5 year old should never be allowed to surf on their own.
If you want that sort of filtering, you should invest in NetNanny or a similar program.
Once again - OpenDNS does not block sites - it blocks dns resolution - sort of.
Any site categorized by OpenDNS is still accessible by it's ip address.
IP access to DNS blocked sites is only partially effective as a means around OpenDNS filtering.
In other words, an "img src" tag referencing http://www.example.com/images/pix1.jpg would be blocked if example.com were blocked. If the reference were ./images/pix1.jpg, the image would still be accessible by accessing the site via IP because of the relative ./images reference.
It would be bad and hard, since websites update often, and who knows if the "clean sites" are hijacked?
written by surblimity 469 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
A "clean sites" category would require a value judgment rather than a categorization. "Clean" is subjective, as is "offensive." For example, religious websites that condemn homosexuality offend me but not some other people, while LGBT websites offend some other people but not me.
OpenDNS should not be in the business of making value judgments for people. Categorization without value judgments allow people to block selectively based on their own values, needs, or requirements.
"Places any child, adult, teacher or even a Nun could visit without being offended."
After being online for over 20 years, I have to say that what you propose is an impossible task.
"Perversion" is entirely subjective. If you want to make a list of something that doesn't offend anybody, that list will contain zero items. Trust me on this.
written by infinity306 462 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
With some of the tagging by the community lately, It would probably fill up with the sites for Clorox, Bounty, Windex, tidy-bowl, ammonia relatively quickly.. also each person probably has a different definition of what would fit in clean sites and what wouldn't
written by thomasboydcomp 453 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
Problem to me with this idea is "clean" by who's opinion?
Plus, anything "clean" could get "un-clean" very quickly
The #1 complaint with this proposal is merely what it is called. I believe in 99% of cases it will be used to put on a child's computer. "Clean" is obviously too subjective and a poor descriptor, but I think everyone knows what G-rated means. With that in mind, why not call it a G-rated Category?
I do have a problem with the complaints here that this requires a value judgment, and the reason i have a problem with that complaint is because most of the categories require value judgments. This is no different. That's why OpenDNS is community driven: because the values of the community decide what goes where.
I also have the same problem with the complaint that any website on that list could suddenly become x-rated, and I have a problem with that because all websites in any existing category faces the same possibility.
It's like people are making up reasons to nuke this idea, despite the fact that their reasons would apply to any of the other pre-existing groups too.
"I think everyone knows what G-rated means" yep, if everyone is american, open your eyes, there is more to the world as you seem to know.
Neverthe less i understand the idea and its not a bad one if you want a clean and trusted environment; to use a rating system (ANY rating system for that matter) would be good.
It would be even nicer if someone would make a way to easy enable and disable this feature so that you can switch from a clean to a normal and back within a mouse click. (i.e. a simple application which logs into the dasboard set the status of the DNS for that connection, obviously password protected).
written by wsiwebadmin 310 days ago
Rating: 2
| Rate Comment:
Would CHILD SAFE or Family Friendly be a better title for the category?
written by Micah Cooksey 244 days ago
Rating: 0
| Rate Comment:
As mentioned before, who gets to decide what is clean and what's not? This is probably for the network admin to decide, not OpenDNS.
written by meshugga00 218 days ago
Rating: 1
| Rate Comment:
It is not possible to have a list of things that no one would find non-offensive... but I do agree with having more categories. For instance, where would the site for the Renaissance Faire go, or the local agricultural fair, or a live music festival?
re: whitelist for "child-appropriate" websites: This is what the parent should be doing, not a network administrator..
Instead of viewing the entire internet except for what’s blocked – you view only a small range of “ok” sites with the rest of the internet blocked. That way the network administrator could know exactly what their users are viewing…
It would be nice to integrate with the white list only feature. Having ALL websites blocked, except those on your white list and if the admin chooses the sites in the “Clean Sites” category.
your clean site my be list in your OWN "never block page". Try to add yourself.
Sign in to comment or register here.
Is this so you can block everything except this category?