Sites that should be blocked but are not

[greazelns]

Why are these sites not blocked:

playboy.com
hustler.com

There are many more sites that should be blocked but are not. I have the % set to 50% (default is 60%).

Is this going to be fixed in future releases?

Second question, is there anyway to redirect users to a webpage that can explain out institutions standards for websites?

Thanks,

[labull]

The quick answer for sites not being blocked is that there is not enough in the content of the page - words - that would let PureSight know if it was bad or not. Sites with mostly pictures are often not blocked.

That said, if you read through the posts here there are indications that the next release will have significant improvments to allow better filtering.

In the mean time, you can add sites you want to block to the Ban List.


Larry

[Pascal]

Apart from what Larry said with the images, it is also possible that the percentage you have set is too high for those sites. Try reducing it to 5% and see if the sites are blocked.

Also, are you 100% sure that the clients are going through PureSight? Often, for Playboy and Hustler and other of the main sites at least, the main page will not be blocked but subsequent pages are.

Caching (Client/Server side) can also play a role, so you might want to retry with the caches purged.

And yes, the next release has an automatically updated list based blocking as well and does indeed block those sites. It also allows you to create custom responses based on the category - so you can define what you want the pages to look like.

The one caveat is that any images, etc. you want to embed in the custom responses needs to be served from some HTTP Server. (WinGate can do that for you, too)

[Hopkinsmailing]

I wasn't paying attention and our license expired for PureSight. Bought another year, changed absolutely nothing (except updating to the latest Wingate version 6.0.4) and sites like playboy.com were getting through but now are blocking again. It's very erratic and these keywords are in the ban list. What I don't like about the ban list is it only looks at the domain name not the text content of the pages.

This 1.0 version needs to get upgraded. Just for the record, the standalone version of PureSight for your individual PC catches pictures and other content very well but doesn't get over zealous on medical sites. As a test go to google and click on images. Type in a search for the alternative four-letter word for breasts. See if PureSight 1.0 blocks the content. Mine doesn't. Filters like NetNanny and even those online family-friendly proxy servers will serve up screens full of topless women but the standalone verion of PureSight blocks this like a real pro. Hopefully that will be the engine Wingate is incorporating into the next upgrade that is desperately needed.

Rob Hopkins