[plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

michaelkpate · 2005-01-20 12:01:44

> zem wrote:

> Incidentally, the nofollow technique is causing quite a stir in the SEO world.

Yeah, I happened across this post yesterday. My feeling is that while it may not stop the spammers from doing it, at least we can disincentivize the results as much as possible. And as for the SEO world, they are always upset about something or another.

Last edited by michaelkpate (2005-01-20 12:02:06)

ubernostrum · 2005-01-20 12:31:23

I think Textpattern is relatively safe, but I agree with those who say that posting a notice on your site does no good; most spammers have programs which simply run a Google search for “mt-comments.cgi” and then start posting comments on all the sites which come up as results. They never look at the sites they’re spamming.

Jeremie · 2005-01-20 13:10:01

> zem wrote:

> Incidentally, the nofollow technique is causing quite a stir in the SEO world.

Oh – my – god

These guys are… well I can’t find the appropriate english word for it…

thebombsite · 2005-01-20 17:46:20

Are you guys aware that Shaun has issued an update so that ShortStat can do this for you?

Andrew · 2005-01-21 02:05:14

I just had another thought. In addition to a nofollow whitelist, perhaps an additional option in comment administration can be enabled (if you’ve set nofollow to TRUE on your site) so that you could manually disable nofollow on a per-comment basis. Ideas?

ramanan · 2005-01-21 02:44:00

Computer, that would be ideal. I think the implementation would have to be quite different from what zem has done however.

Andrew · 2005-01-21 02:56:20

yeah, I’m referring to what could be done post-assimilation into the Txp core.

bleveck · 2005-01-21 06:50:32

Oh – my – god

Jeremie … are you sure you are from France and not Los Angeles? = )

Jeremie · 2005-01-21 07:04:23

Quite sure, never been to the US :-)

The forum linked reminded me of some Friends episodes :-D

tenthumbs · 2005-01-21 07:07:41

I’m hoping for someone to come up with some sort of “nofollow” mini-banner/icon that looks good enough to be widely adopted.
Something the spammers would learn to recognize immediately.

Last edited by tenthumbs (2005-01-21 07:10:05)

Jeremie · 2005-01-21 07:14:13

Huhu the spammers don’t look at the websites, they don’t read websites, they “write” on websites.

bleveck · 2005-01-21 07:22:59

Yeah… I have to agree with Jeremie… I wish spammers would look at something but I doubt they will. Why go to all the trouble to recalibrate a bot when it costs almost nothing to make a post?

The main people who won are search engines who will have better indexes as a result of this thing’s adoption.

Luckily I’ve yet to be comment spammed, though I’m guess it is because texpattern is still a bit obscure.

ohh… yeah.. and because my site is obscure = )

Last edited by bleveck (2005-01-21 07:27:17)

tenthumbs · 2005-01-21 08:00:11

I know it wouldn’t stop the automated spam, but there are a lot of scum entering their spam manually too. A clear signal near the comment box might stop a few of those.

Jeremie · 2005-01-21 08:00:19

Nope I didn’t say nofollow was not a good idea. I say that :

for it to work, the spammers need to notice that spamming some blog software is worthless, and so modify their robots to cut cost down
that will take a least several month, because some spammers are dumb, because the method need to be widely adopted so they notice, and because spamming comment is cheap and coding is expensive so it might take a while for the recoding of spamming robots to be commercialy a good idea
in theory it’s wrong, because it’s Google job to clean their indexes and think of more good ways to indexing quality than popularity, but right now we are looking at damage control not big theories
and even if it does shit on spam quantity, it won’t give spammers backlinks, so it’s a little revenge

And that’s why I’m for it’s integration in 1.0 TXP core release, and I think it should be set on by default.

A good other way of limiting spam, maybe more effective, is to ask for an human action to open the comment form, some kind of link that every webmaster would textualize (is that english ?) for their owns needs so it would slow down spamming robots.

The great idea with nofollow, but I don’t think it work that way right now, has nothing to do with spam. It’s to tell the spider robots not to follow a specific link, it’s very useful on some wiki for example (everytime a link does something a robot shouldn’t trigger in fact).

Last edited by Jeremie (2005-01-21 08:02:06)

bleveck · 2005-01-21 18:07:56

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn’t saying that you thought it was a bad idea. I mainly got the feeling that you though it wasn’t going to work for a long time because most bots don’t spam on a site by site basis. They don’t carefully look at a site.

I think it definitely should be made a default in TXP. When TXP becomes more prevalent on the internet, it will become a more juicy targets for spammers (they will set their bots to look for txp’s comment form too). If rel=nofollow is part of the default set up, that target will be greatly diminished.

On the other hand, things like this do catch on pretty quickly so I’m hopeful that maybe in a year or two there will be an impact.

Oh… and tenthumbs… yeah I can’t believe people go to the trouble to hand spam, but you are right. They do. If you find a cool icon let us know.

Last edited by bleveck (2005-01-21 21:37:11)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#31 2005-01-20 12:01:44

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#32 2005-01-20 12:31:23

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#33 2005-01-20 13:10:01

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#34 2005-01-20 17:46:20

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#35 2005-01-21 02:05:14

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#36 2005-01-21 02:44:00

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#37 2005-01-21 02:56:20

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#38 2005-01-21 06:50:32

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#39 2005-01-21 07:04:23

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#40 2005-01-21 07:07:41

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#41 2005-01-21 07:14:13

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#42 2005-01-21 07:22:59

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#43 2005-01-21 08:00:11

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#44 2005-01-21 08:00:19

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

#45 2005-01-21 18:07:56

Re: [plugin] [ORPHAN] zem_prblock

Board footer