Somewhat-proper sentence enforcement checker thingy.

[MosaicFuneral]

In tech forms, when someone starts a new thread. It should be evaluated whether it has at least rudimentary sentence qualifiers, in the non-code tag fileds.
A crude list of requirements might be: at least on capital and lowercase letter, one of .,?!;, perhaps even no excessive usage of internet common acronyms(possibly to slow?).

Why should such a scanner be implemented:

• "i don lik seein stuf lik thi in a threa"
• May prevent some unreadable inquiries, being posted in the forums.
• People attempting to post such poorly formatted post, might rethink their message and give it an overhaul.

Obviously, I am, as stated, talking about checking for the bare essential characteristics of a readable sentence. Otherwise anything more grammatically correct than that, would prevent a lot of people(including myself) from ever being able to post! lol
Although there could always be an "ignore it" option.

[MosaicFuneral]

Oh, of course checking if there is more than 45% capital letters, which is probably a sign of using all caps or something like "tHiS".

[John A]

We don't even have a code tag checker (which would be relatively straightforward to implement). What makes you think we'll invent a literacy checker any time soon?

[Ancient Dragon]

A literacy test would only work for people whose native language is English. Non-English speaking people might have a difficult time to meet the requirements.

[jbennet]

Agree with ad.

Also lots of threads start with a log/error message/link instead so any sort of filter wont work well.

[WaltP]

We can just get the code from Bable Fish and modify it to properly format the translations to be syntactically correct for the new language. Should be trivial... :icon_twisted:

[verruckt24]

Also lots of threads start with a log/error message/link instead so any sort of filter wont work well.

Why do you think that a log/error message won't make it past the filter ? OR are you thinking that they are themselves written in so bad a langauge/ grammar ? Now C'mon

[jbennet]

OR are you thinking that they are themselves written in so bad a langauge/ grammar

Yes? a log has bad grammar

e.g

01 - BHO - SearchDefault "http://www.search.com"

would be an acceptable line in something like a Hijack This Log. However, to a filter it would look no different to:

Buy Shoes Today - "www.ispamuswithshittyshoeadverts.com"

[verruckt24]

01 - BHO - SearchDefault "http://www.search.com"

would be an acceptable line in something like a Hijack This Log. However, to a filter it would look no different to:

Buy Shoes Today - "www.ispamuswithshittyshoeadverts.com"

I don't get you.

Also we cannot be enforcing grammar (because I feel it would be too complex a task) but we could to some degree enforce proper punctuation marks, and I guess that's what the OP was mentioning.

[MidiMagic]

Do you mean as in how Microsoft Word marks perfectly good grammar as bad, because it picks the wrong word to use as the verb?

I have never seen a grammar program that works right.

I have also never seen a spelling program that knows all of the words.

Get rid of this absurd idea.

[MosaicFuneral]

When did I ever say it should check grammar? Rather I said it should see if there was things such as: excessive capitals, no capitals, and other such things that might indicate a poor post. Checking grammar would be an exhaustive process.

[MidiMagic]

I meant that it would perform just as poorly as the grammar and spelling checkers do. Someone with a perfectly valid post would be caught by this contraption, and would be unable to post what he means.

I want an email filter that recognizes zxnrbl in the email and throws it in the spam can. But that is just as hard to implement.