Slashdot Mirror


Wordpress Banned by Google for Spamming

The Real Nick W writes "Wordpress, an incredibly popular Open Source Blogging system was found to be spamming google by inserting hidden links to junk content on high paying Adsense keywords such as mesothelioma and debt consolidation. Following Threadwatch picking up the story an anonymous Google rep appeared in the original thread admonishing bloggers not to use sneaky tactics to rank highly for "duplicate content" such as the 100,000 hidden articles on the Wordpress site. The articles have now dissapeared from Google and it remains to be seen whether Google will ban Wordpress outright as they tend to do when SEO's and web dev's pull these kinds of stunts."

472 comments

  1. Er... by ZiZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Mesothelioma"? It's a cancer, I guess (or so Google says), but not one I've ever heard of. How did that get to be an expensive adsense word?

    --
    This flies in the face of science.
    1. Re:Er... by Juggle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Two words - Asbestos lawsuits.

      --
      --- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
    2. Re:Er... by Rightcoast · · Score: 1

      Mesothelioma is known as one of the, if not the highest paying adword link. The clickthrough rate is sky high.

    3. Re:Er... by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because asbestos exposure eventually causes mesothelioma, and lawyers are all about suing in asbestos cases lately. There might be other reasons, but that's the first one I thought of.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Er... by freitasm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lawyers make so much money in lawsuits that they are willing to pay the most for each click on ads with this word.

      There are rummours these are one of the highest paying keywords around.

      Some people will make anything to have these ads on their pages - even use hidden text to try and catch the Google bot attention. This is the "spamming" in the article.

    5. Re:Er... by Monokeros · · Score: 1

      I've seen some poorly produced ambulance-chaser ads on tv about a class action suit against a pharmaceutical company that manufactured a dangerous mesothelioma treatment. Maybe that's it?

      --
      The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
    6. Re:Er... by wfberg · · Score: 1

      "Mesothelioma"? It's a cancer, I guess (or so Google says), but not one I've ever heard of. How did that get to be an expensive adsense word?

      It's a specific form of cancer caused by asbesthos. And since some-one has to put asbesthos somewhere before you get to breathe it (it doesn't grow on trees), there's some one to blame, and to sue, and therefore, a handsome profit to be made.

      The assumption is that people who have it will know the name and search for it on google, whereas the unwashed masses wouldn't begin to think of stringing that many syllables together.

      So if you enter Mesothelioma on google you'll get lots of ambulance-chasers' ads. Feel free to click on those to rob them of the dime they're paying for an adsense click-through.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    7. Re:Er... by m50d · · Score: 1, Funny

      Could you clarify that for those of us who are unfamiliar with them? Wikipedia doesn't show anything for it.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Asbestos was widely used as a building material (insulation, I think) before it was found to be carcinogenic. Nowadays there's a bunch of money to be made suing everybody from a diddle eyed joe to a damned if i know when you come down with cancer related to asbestos exposure.

    9. Re:Er... by The+Jonas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True. A couple of years ago books with commercial and government applications and recommendation for asbestos use were selling for upwards of $2000.00 on eBay. Here is another example of some of the continued interest in collecting evidence in these lawsuits. One of the better selling books back then was "Naval Machinery" which detailed the use of asbestos in US battleships, etc.

      An ebay search for "asbestos" sometimes yields some surprising results.

    10. Re:Er... by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Fireproof insulation, to be exact. It works great so long as it isn't disturbed, but once it gets pushed on or touched, asbestos fibers get in the air and tend to not leave your lungs.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    11. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      More specifically, thousands upon thousands of people that worked with asbestos daily did so with the employeer's full knowledge that the shit will either clog your lungs or give you lung cancer--and made no effort to afford them any sort of protection.

      This is what we call wanton neglect.... And frankly, I think this is one of the few cases that actually merit sueage.

    12. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Mesothelioma was common back in Mesopotamia.

    13. Re:Er... by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      Insulation and fire retardation, among various things.

    14. Re:Er... by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the other reason would be: Very high signal/noise ratio.

      People dont search for a word like"mesothelioma" just for fun, so its very likely to get "useful" hits.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    15. Re:Er... by alfrin · · Score: 1

      Mesothelimoa is a malignant cancer usual caused by or related to exposure to asbestas. If you or a loved one has this cancer and think it has to do with asbestas exposure, please call Dr. James Suckolof (Pronoununced Suk- a lof) at 1-899-xxx-xxxx. This is how my day begins, every morning before the news.

    16. Re:Er... by vyke4lyfe · · Score: 1

      Asbestos is also good for sound proofing.

    17. Re:Er... by VideoJ · · Score: 1

      There are rummours these are one of the highest paying keywords around.

      it's current just over $52, I've seen it as high as $80.

      Lawyers are the big bidders, there are several other lawsuit related words that get big bids.

    18. Re:Er... by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My father worked for a couple of decades for Grace in a processing plant in St. Thomas, ON., and of course in his mid-50s he developed, and passed away from, a quick spreading lung cancer caused by asbestos.

      Of course the cause was the heavily laced vermiculite (I remember hopping in big bins full of the stuff when I was a kid. It was a really neat spongy stuff that looked really interesting) that Grace was processing at the St. Thomas plant, and they knew for many years that it was packed full of asbestos but decided that lawsuits due to death and injuries were less costly than cutting off the asbestos lined mine.

      Anyways, a lot of executives at Grace should have gone to jail for gross negligence causing death, but of course they didn't. As it stands we never did sue Grace, as that sort of case is much less common here in Canada, but I'm sure my father wasn't the only victim.

    19. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well hot dog! I'm-a go run me up a nice bill! I can cost them lawyers over a grand in all of about 2 minutes!

    20. Re:Er... by takeya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It looks as if thus far, Wordpress has removed the articles, google has removed the results, as has Yahoo! ... they are still available on MSN at this time, only through cached copies such as this:

      http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=1632330195239 &lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE

    21. Re:Er... by Juiblex · · Score: 1

      Well... now with all this slashdotting, I guess there will be a *lot more* clicking on "mesothelioma" just for fun... or for making the world a better place taking away some dollars from unscrupulous lawyers!

    22. Re:Er... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      (it doesn't grow on trees)

      Literally. It is mined.

    23. Re:Er... by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1

      >> People dont search for a word like"mesothelioma" just for fun, so its very likely to get "useful" hits.

      Bingo. You got it right. other than the 50000 slashdot readers that just googled for "mesothelioma", NO ONE looks for it unless they or someone they know is suffering from it. This makes the targeted ads for "mesothelioma" have a higher clickthrough rate (CTR) and a higher conversion rate as well.

      It is a high paying word because the advertisers make money from the traffic.

      That does change though - when a word pays too well, people try to get the ads to appear by placing junk content on "mesothelioma" on a page with adsense.. ..and this sends junk traffic to the advertisers, resulting in a lower CTR and poor conversion. Then the price goes down.

    24. Re:Er... by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just to clarify, vermiculite itself does not contain asbestos. In fact, it is a type of rock in and of itself which, like a ballpark frank, "Plumps when you cook it", becoming a very light rock.
      The reason the two became associated was, as mentioned in parent, one particular vermiculite mine had asbestos in it as well. All the vermiculite mines which tested positive for asbestos are now closed down.
      I used vermiculite and cement for the bottom of my inground swimming pool (under the liner of course). The result is a bottom that is easier on the feet than a traditional concrete bottom. While vermiculite and cement is not as strong as gravel and cement, it is still able to support a 30 foot water column, which is far deeper than my pool.
      Vermiculite is also commonly used as insulation, especially in masonry applications.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    25. Re:Er... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Peter Grace was a ogre. Did you know he packed a gun? This was in the early 80s. As a CEO you would really have to do some bad things to be that concerned for your well being to carry your own gun and body guards.

    26. Re:Er... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      Yep, generally it's the lawsuit-related keywords that have high pay-per-click values. That's because Google uses a bidding system for the placement of text ads -- the more you bid, the more chances that your ad will be displayed more often. (There's a feedback system in there to weed out the non-paying ads, even if they have high bids.) So of course there are many lawyers willing to bid highly for certain keywords in an attempt to find clients looking to sue someone. It's a numbers game, they only need to find a few clients and win their cases to make it worthwhile. This happened with Vioxx, for example, although that's died down now.

      Other high-paying keywords/phrases: domain name, consolidate loans, credit repair, web hosting, free online poker... etc. etc.

      Eric
      Read my AdSense tips or my upcoming book Make Easy Money with Google
    27. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevertheless, there is something to be said for Money, Bitches and Dope...even if a few employees fall by the wayside.

    28. Re:Er... by instarx · · Score: 1

      Mesothelioma is a very specific type of lung cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure. It isn't, as you implied, that the person gets any cancer and they want to blame it on asbestos exposure to make a buck. If you have mesothelioma it is pretty certain you got it from asbestos exposure.

      There is a "bunch of money" to be made, eh? I tell you what - I'll give you a million dollars if sometime over the next 20 years you will have to start breathing constantly through a thick towel so that every breath is an effort, allow yourself to be constantly and painfully tortured for a year, and then let someone kill you. Think any amount of money is worth it?

      The individual settlements in the W. R. Grace asbestos lawsuits were, by the way, a *lot* less than a million dollars each. But you better believe that the heads of Grace (and a lot of other companies that did the same thing) are living like princes today with their millions of dollars in retirement bonuses. They should be rotting in prison, because the KNEW what asbestos would do and they exposed employees anyway because THEY were the ones making a "bunch of money".

    29. Re:Er... by Raagshinnah · · Score: 1

      Two words - Chewbacca Defense

    30. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, W.R. Grace and seven executives have been indicted because of the events in Libby, Montana. http://www.occupationalhazards.com/articles/12965

  2. The day will come when... by feloneous+cat · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... googling something will turn up nothing. But it will do it in 0.073 seconds!

    --
    IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    1. Re:The day will come when... by DarkMantle · · Score: 0

      It found something in 0.06 seconds for me.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    2. Re:The day will come when... by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      Most of the time it's 0.06s, other values that appear often are 0.05s, 0.07s and 0.34s, I even had a 0.04s once.

    3. Re:The day will come when... by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      Hello!! It was a joke!!!

      He said searching for SOMETHING would turn up NOTHING

      Wow, I didn't think it was possible for the /. average IQ to drop this low.

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
    4. Re:The day will come when... by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that it doesn't realy matter if you search for something or nothing, in both cases it still takes 0.06, 0.05, 0.07 or 0.34 seconds.

    5. Re:The day will come when... by Mystic8277 · · Score: 1

      Puleeezee, I got 0.13

  3. Blogger.com by filmmaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This leads me to wonder: what about blogger.com? There's just as much dubious "blogging" going on there as anywhere.

    1. Re:Blogger.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It isn't blog spam. It spam hidden elsewhere on the wordpress site that's the problem. Read the article!

      Spammers are paying the wordpress site to host bogus articles on the site. Since the blogs of people that use the wordpress software package link to the wordpress site, the wordpress site is ranked as an authoritative site. This lets the spammers get their rankings on Google boosted because wordpress links to them in the bogus spam articles.

      It has NOTHING to do with what people are blogging about.

    2. Re:Blogger.com by Raven15 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issue here isn't what individuals are putting on their pages, it's that Wordpress put a bunch of invisible links on it's front page. Because Wordpress has a high Google rating, this boosted the Google rating for the links. Obviously that's in violation of Google's terms.

    3. Re:Blogger.com by andnowwhat · · Score: 1

      I use uniBlogger.com, so far they've been great and they take down any spam blogs. They also support Google's rel="nofollow" for all embedded links and captcha for comment spam.

    4. Re:Blogger.com by Suburbanpride · · Score: 2, Informative

      while this wasn't about blogging, Google owns blogger.com so I doubt that they woudl have any problem with them. I am curious however to see how google plans to make money with blogger, besides encouraging bloogers to put up advertising.

      --
      sorry 'bout the mess...
    5. Re:Blogger.com by filmmaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's an interesting question, but I think they may be able to make a reasonable business model out of just the ads. That is, supposing they continue to have so much dominance. The ad model doesn't scale down too well, in terms of true viability and not "vacation money."

    6. Re:Blogger.com by boarder8925 · · Score: 1
      Read the article!
      That's RTFA!

      You must be new here. =P
    7. Re:Blogger.com by randomErr · · Score: 1

      Here Blogger.com spammer: http://unearthohio.blogspot.com/

      It just posts the first sentence of an article that has a keyword in it.

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    8. Re:Blogger.com by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not really spam, per se. Spam is much more insideous than that. This is some gnarly blog spam. Just one example, and not even the most nefarious I've seen.

    9. Re:Blogger.com by bbtom · · Score: 1

      Who knows? These Google folk are running it as a dark aside. Perhaps they are going to try and take all the Blogger staff and sell them as white slaves?

      Seriously, they probably bought it to be hip. I'm an active blogger, but I can't see why everyone is busting a nut over the enormous buyouts and stuff.

      It's a system that lets you post your content quickly and easily. A subculture has grown up around it (yuck: I used the word subculture...), but I still don't see the profit motive in it all. Perhaps that's why I'm not making millions and other people are.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    10. Re:Blogger.com by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      ..."invisible links on it's front page."

      Is that the same things as meta tags? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_tags

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    11. Re:Blogger.com by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1

      No, they used CSS to give it a -9000px left indent and set it to hide on overflow, if I understand correctly.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  4. Heh by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

    I search google for mesothelioma about once a week (from various proxies) and click on an adwords ad just to screw some lawyer out of $40 (which is what a click on that keyword costs.)

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use tor and save yourself the trouble of switching proxies over and over. Then you can script it if you want.

      http://tor.eff.org/
      http://www.socks.permeo.com/Download/SocksCapDownl oad/index.asp

    2. Re:Heh by akeyes · · Score: 1

      Now they will really be out some money, with /. clicking the Adwords, too.

    3. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. I have to use it to post to Slashdot because I keep getting 30 day bans. You just can't be a joker on slashdot anymore now that funny does nothelp, but can hurt your karma.

      NB.

    4. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there aren't that many tor proxies and all of us tor users are using the same ones.

    5. Re:Heh by clem · · Score: 4, Funny

      You just can't be a joker on slashdot anymore

      But, given the quality of the postings here, you can be a smoker or a late night toker.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    6. Re:Heh by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      how do you know how much it costs them?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo!
      +1 Steve Miller reference!

    8. Re:Heh by Jahz · · Score: 1

      Try to buy one of the adwords from Google.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
    9. Re:Heh by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good. Now you've just justified lawyers taking a bigger cut of the victim's settlement to cover costs.
      I hope you still have that triumphant "I screwed someone who screws the little guy" feeling.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    10. Re:Heh by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Dibs on being Maurice.

    11. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i just did the same as you did... only i went back and forth about 10 times ... does that mean that www.advancedwebsearch.com is going to pay 400$ to google?

    12. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I do the same thing for bulk mailer! :-)

    13. Re:Heh by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Good. Now you've just justified lawyers taking a bigger cut of the victim's settlement to cover costs. I hope you still have that triumphant "I screwed someone who screws the little guy" feeling. ...and the worlds smallest violing is playing the worlds saddest song...

      Or the business will go to lawyers that can offer better terms because they are not trolling for clients by buying medical adwords (or chasing ambulances, or doing high-pressure sales on people that are ill, injured, frightened and in pain).

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    14. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you aren't actually funny.

    15. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means your clicks were probably detected as invalid and your victim will not have to pay for even one of your clicks.

  5. Lots of problems like that... by chris09876 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although it's good that Google's taking a step in the right direction by trying to keep their index clean, there are lots of sites who try to spam the index. SEO is a huge 'industry'. Cracking down on some of the big perpetrators is a good start, but more needs to be done if Google wants to maintain (and even improve) the quality of their searches.

    1. Re:Lots of problems like that... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      If you want quality searches, you need www.clusty.com. The results are separated in clusters. Google just bundles everything and anything together.

    2. Re:Lots of problems like that... by rmarll · · Score: 1

      Although it's good that Google's taking a step in the right direction by trying to keep their index clean, there are lots of sites who try to spam the index. SEO is a huge 'industry'. Cracking down on some of the big perpetrators is a good start, but more needs to be done if Google wants to maintain (and even improve) the quality of their searches.

      Are they "cracking down" on the SEO's or actually retaliating at the comercial sites that paid for the SEO services? Both?

    3. Re:Lots of problems like that... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      A lot of search engines have experimented with clustered results. Altavista even had a graphic program (Java? I forget) that displayed clusters as a kind of map. The idea sounds good, but isn't all that useful in today's billion-page web. Since clusters are based on keywords in the results, what you're really doing is getting suggestions for additional keywords for your search. And since the clusters that come up first are the most popular ones, the keywords that generate them are the least likely to help you "drill down". Faster to just look at your Google results and ask yourself, "Why is this too broad and what additional keywords should I add?"

    4. Re:Lots of problems like that... by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1

      Do you Kartoo? It's a very nice cluster/spacial search engine, although I think it actually just aggregates other search engines results.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  6. One word... by tag · · Score: 4, Informative

    lawyers.

  7. SEO by chiapetofborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for an SEO company, and we hear about all the sneaky tricks, but it isn't all that hard to be optimized while not pulling sneaky attacks. Google has a very complicated algorithm that take a lot of things into effect. The reason that they rank pages that have certain characteristics, is because those pages can actually be good, they don't have to be sneaky. A very closely monitored network of domains, can get a very high page rank. One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well.

    1. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well."

      If Google gives higher rankings to sites that have more links pointed at them, would you consider link exchange programs sneaky? For instance, lots of websites link to slashdot.org, but I doubt that CowboyNeil has a SEO company getting reciprocal links for /. I'm really not trying to flame, but I'd like to understand the perspective from the SEO's.

      Are link exchanges just another example of exploiting a flaw in google?

    2. Re:SEO by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Funny

      One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well.

      Cool!

      Now once the spammers figure that out, spam will stop.

    3. Re:SEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought "SEO companies" were just a nice way to say spammer.

    4. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Are link exchanges just another example of exploiting a flaw in google?"

      I think your asking the wrong question. The correct question would be: Is there an algorithm that can't be manipulated?

      The answer is no so we will always have SEO's. It's just an arms race we have to live with and the best search engine is the one that stays a few steps ahead of the others and this is google for the time being. There is too much money to be made from high rankings to expect this to go away.

    5. Re:SEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spammers are SEOs, but not all SEOs are spammers.

    6. Re:SEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If Google gives higher rankings to sites that have more links pointed at them, would you consider link exchange programs sneaky?"

      There's a huge difference between exchanging five or ten links of similar/related sites and between hundreds of shit links.

    7. Re:SEO by kurosawdust · · Score: 2, Insightful
      One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well.

      Google's job is to give the user the most relevant pages to a topic. A search for "viagra" should ideally bring up things like the webmd information for the drug and pfizer's site long before any "BUY CHEAP PERSCRIPTION V1AGR@ FROM Cherub J. Happenstance" pages.

      Consequently, anything that you do to your web page specifically and solely for the purpose of increasing your search engine ranking without increasing the relevance of your page, while we can split hairs about whether it's a "sneaky trick" or not, it's pretty clear that it's a nontrivially scummy thing to do.

    8. Re:SEO by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Link exchange has been around longer than Google or even Yahoo. Back in the day, it was the only way to string together the fifteen crappy little personal homepages on the web.

      Since there are reasons for link exchange outside of gaming your pagerank (inane as they may be), I can't imagine Google considering that spamming.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:SEO by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Some SEO companies will literally litter the web with a million shitty links to a "Target" website, and use all kinds of nasty methods to get a high pagerank.

    10. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about any of the "reasons for link exchange outside of gaming your pagerank ", I'm talking about link exchanges with SEO's. I posted commenting about the "One need not revert to sneaky tactics to do well." comment. It just seems like these SEO exchanges are just spamming the serps.

    11. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I understand the "arms race" and the money that's motivating it. It's the same situation with spam...

      It's just the spammers don't brag about being from a Spam Company while posting on slashdot.

      My original post didn't have to do with technology or "flaws" in google. It had to do with ethics. I was just intrigued when the SEO guy said they could get good results without being sneaky. I just wanted to know if they considered "link exchanges" a non-sneaky method.

    12. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting question? Here's another one. Is it unethical to make a site specifically for marketing? Where is the line drawn? Slashdot makes money from advertising as do most SEO's. What's the difference? What's the difference between what SEO's do and putting up billboards on the side of the road?

    13. Re:SEO by ashot · · Score: 1

      The difference is that you paid for the billboard as it was intended for that purpose, whereas you didn't pay for the higher google rank. In fact you stole it, as its not offered for sale, its not intended for that purpose. An better analogy is grafitti.
      An even better analogy are food companies gaming the FDA testing with weird ingredients to have their products show up unfairly high in nutrition ratings and other metrics.

      --
      -ashot
    14. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with advertising at all. I don't really like billboards, but they have a value to the owners and the advertisers.

      Here's the difference as I see it:

      Slashdot gives useful content to users, so it becomes popular (and sells ad space...like billboards on a busy road). They don't use tricks to get the search engines to increase their serps rating. With the ad analogy, what is the difference between SEO companies and spam?

      Both take advantage of free adspace that annoys users. I use a search engine to search for the results that I'm looking for...not advertisements. That's what Adwords is for.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not against capitalism, advertising or profit. I'm against the idea of someone exploiting a system (email, search engines, illegally painting over a real billboard) to get some free advertising while ruining the value to the users.

    15. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      I don't think your logic holds up. How are the rankings stolen from? Why do they deserve it? How should rankings be determined?

    16. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      So in your world no one would put any effort into affecting their search rankings other than making a good site! They would never trade links or anything.

      Unfortunately that world doesn't exist. I can only live in this world as it is and if I want to sell online then I have to do seo. Here's another question for you. What if I have a site that provides value to users. Maybe I sell candles and have a wide assortment. I think pay someone to get me traffic via SEO. A user then goes to google and searches for 'trapp candles' because they want to buy some candles. I show up because of my 'sneaky' tactics, they come to my site, find want they want, and leave a happy customer. Is this wrong?

    17. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 1

      "So in your world no one would put any effort into affecting their search rankings other than making a good site!"

      I don't recall claiming that we live in a perfect world. I was simply talking about ethics. Let me try a different way.

      Do you see any ethical dilima with spamming people to sell your hypothetical candles. Where would you draw the line? You asked, "I show up because of my 'sneaky' tactics, they come to my site, find want they want, and leave a happy customer. Is this wrong?" I would say that it would depend on the 'sneaky' tactics. Are you claiming that there is nothing unethical that can be done to gain serps?

    18. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      "Are you claiming that there is nothing unethical that can be done to gain serps?" No, and I'll give you an example. A lot of unethical SEO's will literally steal your content. You'll spend a lot of time writing good content and someone will scrape your site and use your costly content for themselves. This is cleary wrong.

      However, a lot of people around here seem to believe that doing anything to affect your ranking is wrong. I think most /.ers have an oversimplified view of the SEO world and how it works. I'm trying to make the point that there are SEO techniques that are ok, and some of the ones people complain about may in fact be ok if they put some thought into it. A lot of it isn't any less moral than normal marketing. Link exchanges, buying links, etc.

    19. Re:SEO by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      With the ad analogy, what is the difference between SEO companies and spam?

      A true SEO company does nothing other than ensure a client website is highly ranked for the keyphrases that really do cover the content of the webite.

      A Search Engine Spammer gets sites ranked for terms that get lots of traffic but are not necisarily related.

      --
      -- $G
    20. Re:SEO by ashot · · Score: 1

      its true, "stolen" is not the right word because you didn't take anything away, thats why I included the second analogy. Its not illegal, but its unethical because you are purposefuly undermining (I'm taking this as an assumption) a metric that is being used for the common good.

      --
      -ashot
    21. Re:SEO by the_womble · · Score: 1
      A search for "viagra" should ideally bring up things like the webmd information for the drug and pfizer's site long before any "BUY CHEAP PERSCRIPTION V1AGR@ FROM Cherub J. Happenstance" pages.

      Google brings up both Pfizer first and the FDA and Wikipedia pages on the first page. The ideal search engine would automatically bring in some results from a search for "Sildenafil citrate" as well and some generic manufacturers site. Clusty does better than Google on searches like this (i.e. alternative keywords that might be worth trying, or if you are likely to ahve to narrow the search).

    22. Re:SEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have a shit crappy page, and I pay you to get me a good ranking, how on earth do you do it short of making my page good?

    23. Re:SEO by karmatic · · Score: 1
      Optimization really doesn't require sneaky tricks, especially if you are just trying to legitimatly increase the amount of money you make on AdSense.

      All it takes is a little bit of code, and you can test for yourself what Google thinks your page is about.

      Wordpress took it too far, though. Not only did they make spammy pages, but they deliberatly linked to pages on how to file a lawsuit and the like. If you take a look at This Page, you can see what google did for their AdSense keywords:
      Getting results for: http://wordpress.org/articles/health-care--mesothe lioma-asbestos-law-suits.htm:
      Keyword: Asbestos
      Keyword: Asbestos Cancer
      Keyword: Asbestos Claim
      Keyword: Asbestos Claims
      Keyword: Asbestos Compensation
      Keyword: Asbestos Disease
      Keyword: Asbestos Diseases
      Keyword: Asbestos Exposure
      Keyword: Asbestos Law
      Keyword: Asbestos Lawsuit
      Keyword: Asbestos Lawyer
      Keyword: Asbestos Litigation
      Keyword: Asbestos Lung
      Keyword: Asbestos Lung Cancer
      Keyword: Asbestos Reform
      Keyword: Asbestos Symptoms
      Keyword: Court Filing
      Keyword: How to File a Lawsuit
      Keyword: Lawsuit
      Keyword: Lung Cancer Mesothelioma
      Keyword: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
      Keyword: Mesothelioma Asbestos
      Keyword: Mesothelioma Compensation
      Keyword: Mesothelioma Lawsuits
      Keyword: Mesothelioma Symptoms
      Keyword: Pleural Mesothelioma
    24. Re:SEO by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Maybe I sell candles and have a wide assortment. I think pay someone to get me traffic via SEO. A user then goes to google and searches for 'trapp candles' because they want to buy some candles. I show up because of my 'sneaky' tactics, they come to my site, find want they want, and leave a happy customer. Is this wrong?

      How about this: you find out where the Yellow Pages phone books are being printed, sneak in one night and make your listing duplicated 1000 times over, taking up dozens of pages. Customers looking for "candles" finds dozens of pages with only your number. They say what the hell and buy from you. They're reasonably happy. But it's not them that have been harmed (much, yet). Leaving aside the trespass aspect, that's what you're doing. And next year, a hundred of your competitors sneak in and do the same thing. Now the phone book is 10,000 pages long and no one wants to even open it any more because it's full of ads for candles.

      You're fucking up the whole "search" idea for everyone. The end is either Google deletes you and your like or it goes out of business. "Search" is like a listing, NOT like advertising. Every time some company tries to make it like advertising, they lose, Altavista did, Yahoo did, Google didn't and is on top BECAUSE they are perceived as having links not based on payment but relevance.

    25. Re:SEO by rjelks · · Score: 1

      You are either a real estate agent or work as an SEO'er.

    26. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      "but its unethical because you are purposefuly undermining (I'm taking this as an assumption) a metric that is being used for the common good."

      Um, I think you are way off on this one. Are you saying that exchanging links is unethical? Is putting keywords in the title unethical? Define undermining? If I sell candles, and I try to boost my rankings for candles, is that unethical?

    27. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      Your missing the point. What you describe is unethical, but that is not all SEO. The point I'm trying to make is that there is ok SEO and bad SEO. Let's not lump it all together.

    28. Re:SEO by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      What you describe is unethical, but that is not all SEO.

      Before you described what you did as "sneaky". Probably that's what anyone else would call "unethical". Unless you're not more specific, I'll just give you the deficit of the doubt; you're not in a well-trusted profession.

      Bascially, spammers are fucking up email and usenet, SEOs are fucking up web search. To be perhaps repetitous, there are many search engines that will happily take your money to give you a higher ranking. The problem is that no one uses them exactly because of that.

    29. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      I put "sneaky" in quotes because I don't believe it's sneaky, but there seems to be a general feeling that all SEO is sneaky. The tactics I was talking about were link exchanges and buying links along with optimizing site content.

      However, we've gotten away from the important point. Complaining isn't going to make it go away. We need a technical solution if that is even possible.

    30. Re:SEO by ashot · · Score: 1
      How am I way off? I think I've defined everything pretty rigorously, but I'll try to be more clear.

      Certain metrics are beneficial for the public good, examples:

      the FDA methods for testing food

      vote counting

      the Google ranking algorithm

      All of these metrics are trying to abstract, measure, and simplify a very complicated concept, otherwise they would be trivial (and not beneficial to the public good). Given that, its possible to cheat every one of them by understanding the methods for abstraction and simplification that are used. We can define clearly what we mean by cheating because we know the intent of these metrics, we know the aggregate concept they are trying to measure (nutrition in food, the desire of the people, page relevance and relative importance).
      For example (no more analogies), lets take a look at voting. Its become fashionable in politics for the party that controls the state congress to redraw the district lines into ridiculous crazy shapes (re-districting) to try to maximize the number of people that will be elected from their party (in fact, they hire software consulting companies so solve this optimization problem for them). This is, in my book, cheating: deliberately undermining what the metric is trying to measure by tampering with its methods of simplification.

      [the rest is optional]
      Yea, so you say, who cares about the Google rankings, thats not all that important. Well I couldn't disagree more. We live in a time where 90% of the media and information that is consumed by the public is controlled by 6 companies.
      Call me a conspiracy theorist, but in my opinion that kind of centralization (combined with the unequal distribution of wealth) has introduced a very strong bias into all of those sources. Going back to metrics, the problem is that the metric for deciding what kind of media, and which information is presented in this 90% is number of dollars, not number of people. In that sense Google, and the internet in general, is the only major source of information where this is not the case; I can start writing a blog today from a connection in the public library, and have thousands and thousands of people reading it in a few months, not by spending money, but by saying something valuable. I think this is extremely important, and SEO is working directly against this ideal.

      Against the law? No.
      Unethical? Yes.
      Inevitable? Of course.
      Would I contribute to it? Never.

      --
      -ashot
    31. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      Is exchaning links unethical in your book?

      Another point, google and search engines aren't the only way to find content on the internet. Word of mouth still works great if you actually have something of value. Let's use your blog analogy. If you make a blog today, and there were no SEO's, you still wouldn't rank in the search engines because no one links to you. How will you get visitors to your site? I agree with your overall point of view, but I think you make some logical leaps that don't hold up. You imply that SEO is bad because we have corporate controlled media. This simply makes no sense. This assertion requires SEO ablility to be based on money. i.e. the only way to rank is by having lots of money. This simply isn't true. SEO techniques require very little money. You could have all of your sites ranking if you knew how! I agree with you in general though.

    32. Re:SEO by ashot · · Score: 1

      Is exchaning links unethical in your book?
      If the sole purpose is not to link to each other, but to raise your google rank, then yes.

      Another point, google and search engines aren't the only way to find content on the internet. Word of mouth still works great if you actually have something of value.
      Yes, but this is irrelevant as it doesn't change the fact that search engines are used millions of times a day to find things.

      Let's use your blog analogy. If you make a blog today, and there were no SEO's, you still wouldn't rank in the search engines because no one links to you. How will you get visitors to your site?
      I would get visitors to the site because my friends would read it, find it interesting, link to me (for this reason!) and it would spread by word of mouth as you say to others, assuming that the content was interesting (it doesn't have to be a blog). Then my google ranking would go up as more and more people read and linked to my site.

      You imply that SEO is bad because we have corporate controlled media. This simply makes no sense.
      I don't think I ever made that assertion... I think SEO is bad because it undermines a metric which is beneficial to the public good.

      I was pointing out the particular importance of this specific metric in light of corporate controlled... everything.

      This assertion requires SEO ablility to be based on money. i.e. the only way to rank is by having lots of money. This simply isn't true. SEO techniques require very little money. You could have all of your sites ranking if you knew how!

      Well, in the sense that I can pay for a high ranking, in this sense it is based on money. I mean it is an industry right? Perhaps optimization itself does not cost too much money, however its definately true that I can pay for links from a site with a high page rank. Isn't this how it works? People set up huge link farms and other measures to get themselves a high page rank, and then they sell links from their site? At least I'm sure thats part of it.

      But this is besides the point, even if it doesn't cost a lot of money, thats not really relevant. You are still corrupting the results and (perhaps beating a deat horse here) undermining the metric, which I think is the key here.

      --
      -ashot
    33. Re:SEO by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of details that complicate your pure vision but I really don't have time to go tit for tat about it. Here is one example: I buy advertising for my site. This means someone gives me links from their sites, not with the intention of ranking higher, but it has this effect anyway. This undermines the public good as you like to say, but I didn't mean to buy a higher ranking. I was just trying to buy advertising. Does this mean advertising in this form is unethical. "Well, in the sense that I can pay for a high ranking, in this sense it is based on money. I mean it is an industry right? Perhaps optimization itself does not cost too much money, however its definately true that I can pay for links from a site with a high page rank. Isn't this how it works?" Not exactly. You can buy links, but you have to do a lot more to rank and stay there. Link farms are blacklisted for the most part and don't work. I don't want to get into all the details, I just wanted to try and show that SEO and the ethics of it aren't as black and white as is percieved. I agree with you in general, as I said, but I think reality has a lot more gray than your vision of right and wrong.

    34. Re:SEO by ashot · · Score: 1

      I dunno, we are getting pretty petty here, but I just don't agree. Linking from site to site is going to happen for a multitude of reasons, but its pretty clear when the intention is not to create a link for the viewer of the page, but to create a link for the googlebot.
      Perhaps the distinction is more subtle though, I don't know..

      --
      -ashot
  8. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn bloggers...

  9. Google by Schezar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is why I love Google. They approach problems in an intelligent manner.

    Problem: Spammers are very obviously trying to muck with our results.

    Solution: Block said spammers.

    The only problem is that it's hard to notice all but the most egregious offenders.

    I've love Google to add a link to the standard search results. Something like "Report Spam." If enough (100k, a million, whatever) unique people/IPs reported a site or result, it would be flagged for human review.

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
    1. Re:Google by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The only problem i could see with that is zombie networks , a quick little worm and shazzzam a site like slashdot is blacklisted . easy way to get rid of your competitors

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They have a spam reporting tool, it's just not obvious. One of my biggest annoyances is the ebay redirectors, who always seem to have the first 10 search results on any product.

    3. Re:Google by alatesystems · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The only problem is that it's hard to notice all but the most egregious offenders.
      Except when it's posted on Ars Technica for all the geeks in the world, including Google employees, to see.

      I've love Google to add a link to the standard search results. Something like "Report Spam." If enough (100k, a million, whatever) unique people/IPs reported a site or result, it would be flagged for human review.
      That has to be the most insightful thing I have EVER read in a slashdot comment. You should suggest it via the google suggest page. It sounds like a great idea to use the most awesome pattern matching machine(the human mind). I'm sure there are more than enough people like you and I that can tell just from the description it's a google-attacking spam page that would flag it.

      In short, mod parent up.
    4. Re:Google by brontus3927 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I like the idea for this, but I don't think it could ever be implemented well. First of all, if the number is too small, it would be really easy to abuse. If it was too large, it would be useless. I'm sure Microsoft has enough resouces to get www.redhat.com flagged.

      Alternatively (and I'm sure just as difficult to implement) would be a voting system. Allow users to vote on which links had the information they searched for. And figure in a sites vote tally into its rating

    5. Re:Google by OAB_X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldnt block them automatically, it only triggers a human review.

    6. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what part of "human review" do you not understand?

    7. Re:Google by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Yes i shouldnt of used slashdot as an example , but other sites small start-ups or less prominent sites , a few rouge posters thrown in for good mesure and your site or forum could easily be made to look like an offender

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    8. Re:Google by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

      I think it'd be relatively easy to do if they combined it with some validation method like "characters in an image" thing (I don't know what they're called).

      That way, someone that actually wanted to report something could easily do so, and it'd be damn hard to be abused by botnets and similar stuff.

    9. Re:Google by OAB_X · · Score: 1

      You can go to a site on google (link below) to report spam as it is, so, I mean, its not as if you cant report spam at all, but to have a "report spam link" on the bottom of the search page linking to here http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html would not be such a bad idea, but to make it automatic (as was suggested in grand-grand parent post only opens up the possibility for spamming and other badness.

    10. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already there. It's called "Dissatisfied? Help us improve". I often report spam using it.

    11. Re:Google by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem i was mostly seeing was the fact that it would require say 100k or 1000000 , as a single spam report from one person compared which has to be delt with is less likely to be taken as seriously as 1 million or so (that will teach me to shoot my mouth off without fully thinking my post through) so even if it is under human review we all know how the group mentality works , its how my great grandparent post got moded up and its how its going straight down to hell

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    12. Re:Google by Cecil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of "Flagged for human review" does everyone not understand?

      When a Google employee looks through the flagged sites, removing the ones which are clearly SEO-spam they will see www.redhat.com and think, "Gee, I am not so sure that is a spam site" and not remove it. Very simple. In fact, a particularly vindictive human reviewer may in fact go to his or her superiors and say "Hey, this site was unfairly submitted for review and I don't think that many people would accidentally do that. Why don't you look through the logs and try to figure out who did this and so we can remove their site instead?"

      Alternatively (and I'm sure just as difficult to implement) would be a voting system. Allow users to vote on which links had the information they searched for. And figure in a sites vote tally into its rating

      There's nothing at all difficult to implement about this. It's just wide open to abuse and ironically enough, SEO-spamming, by its very nature. Something the original poster's well-thought-out scheme is not even though everyone is claiming it is.

    13. Re:Google by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      Yes, sites could get flagged for different reasons, but they'd still have to be reviewed and manually blocked by Google staff to disappear from the search results.

      --
      Martin
    14. Re:Google by ultramk · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is, human review isn't easily scalable, and humans makes mistakes. Through laziness, incompetence, or ignorance.

      Also, they get such a frigging VAST quantity of traffic that they would be forced to only respond to the more egregious offenders, leaving the other 99% unchecked, making it seem worthless to the people who bothered to "report" it, because 99% of the time, their complaints will seemingly be ignored. ...and suppose a mistake occurs and a good site is banned. What's the appeal process? An additional review?

      I imagine questions like these are why they haven't implemented something like this already: they do EVERYTHING with an algorithm. It's their very nature.

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    15. Re:Google by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      They have a report spam link, but it seems to operate slowly.

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    16. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to be the most insightful thing I have EVER read in a slashdot comment.

      That says more about you than /.

    17. Re:Google by wren337 · · Score: 1

      I want the same thing for other drivers. someone's driving like an a$$? tag them. when enough people tag them they lose their license.

    18. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine questions like these are why they haven't implemented something like this already: they do EVERYTHING with an algorithm. It's their very nature.

      Can't the pigeons be trained to review spam complaints?

    19. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shouldn't've" or "shouldn't have"

      never "shouldn't of"

      the use of "of" comes from the fact that the "'ve" abbreviation of "have" sounds a little like "of" in some accents.
      But for a lot of us, the difference is so marked that "of" will always sound wrong. Use "'ve" instead.

    20. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, we'll need a system of meta-moderation to counteract the...... hmm, sounds awfully familiar.

    21. Re:Google by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      Huh, sure. What ever. Computers have cracked these images. OCR is good enough that if it can't read it, neither can you. Being blind, I've run OCR over some of these and, once I get the settings right, I can generally get the text out of it. Then again, maybe OCR like in Kurzwiel isn't generally available.

    22. Re:Google by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      Instead of a simple "report spam" link/button i would prefer a selection box with categories. While searching there would be an option to filter on categories so you can also remove results related to categories like "online shopping". Sure you can use -shop -buy and keywords like that but that doesn't work as well as a user based classification system.

    23. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I am searching and I notice that some site has hyjacked Google and page after page is them I find something in their url that I then use with a minus sign to say "and I don't want to see this".

      That is a good thing that I like to do and it works on Ebay too to get rid of annoying things that are in a category that ought not to be.

      I don't see that reporting this is going to matter.

      If google wants to pay me to tell them what I discovered while searching, then fine.
      Maybe they can have real people do real searches and pay them and then make their product better.
      If they get $40 a click, then they can pay me to find the site spammers.

    24. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realise i do it on purpse to annoy people dont you
      --FC

    25. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to be the most insightful thing I have EVER read in a slashdot comment.

      Then I doubt you've thought things out fully. At that point the spam bots switch from spamming connected links in blogs up doing click-throughs claiming all of their competitors are spam. So then google has to be able to figure out which reports are authentic and which aren't, which isn't much easier than figuring out which pages are spam in the first place.

  10. Coming this summer to a browser near you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Team Google: Internet Police!

    1. Re:Coming this summer to a browser near you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mou-hou-hountain Viewww
      Mou-hou-hountain Viewww
      Mountain View, f--- yeah!
      Coming again to save the mother f---ing web, yeah.
      Mountain View, f--- yeah!
      PageRank is the only way, yeah.
      Link spammer your day is through 'cause now you have to answer to
      Mountain View, f--- yeah!

      (I had to, really.)

  11. Banned from Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost like ceasing to exist on the Web.

  12. Oh, crap!!! by feloneous+cat · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just ordered mesothelioma from a Greek diner!

    --
    IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    1. Re:Oh, crap!!! by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      It's pronounced mussaka! Much more benign but you'll still won't geto to sleep easily if you have two servings of it before turning in.

    2. Re:Oh, crap!!! by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Dose yourself liberally with Metaxa, and you'll be OK.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  13. Ban their ass by Donny+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does the fact that they're OSS-based make them immune to rules?
    Shall we let some spammers go wild just because they might be using sendmail?

    I say ban their ass.

    1. Re:Ban their ass by mr_tommy · · Score: 1

      I agree. I really hate to say it, but if Microsoft / Generic Evil Corp. did this stuff on their website, you can damn well be sure their pages would be out of the index fast.

    2. Re:Ban their ass by nsasch · · Score: 1

      If someone as low as a spammer can configure sendmail securely and properly, they wouldn't go as low as sending spam. Except the few people who are successful enough to do better in spam than a real job(if you'd call slave work in a carpeted cubicle a real job).

      --
      Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
    3. Re:Ban their ass by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      If they're running Sendmail instead of any of the faster, easier to configure, better in every way MTAs, then yeah, they should be banned. :)

    4. Re:Ban their ass by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Generic Evil Corp., but not Microsoft.

      Think about it from Google's perspective. What would be the reaction if people tried to search for Microsoft on Google and couldn't find it? They would think Google was crap. Google would have to make some kind of decision about what to do, but I highly doubt that they would remove a site as major as microsoft.com from their search results.

      Now Microsoft would never engage in this particular type of shady doin's, because they don't need the money, that is, they don't need money from some scheme unrelated to their business. One might even say that Generic Evil Corp. would probably shy away from measures like that because their ordinary evil activities should make them enough money as long as they can maintain something approximating a clean image...

  14. Revenge by Nastard · · Score: 0

    If I were in their shoes and if I were the kind of person to do so, my tactic would be to send a message to Google by rallying the blogosphere behind me to Google-bomb those keywords. Though if this becomes big news, the articles themselves will have taken care of that.

    I should mention that I've had problems with the Adsense group before, and would like to see terrible things happen to them.

    1. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have rules for a reason, and these people knew what they were doing was against them. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to accomplish.

    2. Re:Revenge by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Of course, since they obviously have no ethical standards, we can probably expect them to just release a new version of Wordpress that turns the machine of any blogger using it into a google-spamming zombie.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    3. Re:Revenge by Nastard · · Score: 1

      Two big "if"s and a clear statement that I'm admittedly biased against Adsense. What's not to get? What I'm trying to accomplish should be obvious...

      I want to convince people to kick puppies and yell at babies.

      Duh.

    4. Re:Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, screw with them and hopefully they'll lift the ban? That's kinda like that time I was mad at my wife for something. She kicked me in the balls, which helped me understand my rage was misplaced, and I forgave her.

  15. They were begging for it. by heavy+snowfall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They had a high google rank, and profited(/broke even?) on it by breaking google's terms of service.
    Not too surprising that google did something about it.

    1. Re:They were begging for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buh? How can Google (whose model is to crawl and find all sites on the web) claim they have a "Terms of Service" that they can legally enforce on the contract that THEY go and index? You don't have to INVITE google to index your site.

      Google can't claim to have a contractual right to enforce terms or restrictions on arbitrary websites simply because Google chooses to index those sites.

      Google can have a terms of service that apply to users of google.com or their various API's or services. But what "terms of service" can they claim the right to enforce on a site that Google chooses of their own accord to index?

    2. Re:They were begging for it. by heavy+snowfall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, i used the wrong word, I guess what I meant was site inclusion policy or something of the the sort. But they relied on google (their money came from using their high rank with google), and they did something that google has made it quite clear that they would drop them from their index for.

    3. Re:They were begging for it. by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

      You don't have to invite Googlebot, but you can certainly entice it, and that's what I think is going on here.

      --

      --
      the strongest word is still the word "free"
    4. Re:They were begging for it. by Saven+Marek · · Score: 1

      > They had a high google rank, and profited(/broke even?) on it
      > by breaking google's terms of service.

      Hmmmmmm this sounds suspicious

      Exactly what "terms of service" did they sign to be bound by google?

      What right does google have to remove them when wordpress hasnt signed any agreement with google. I didnt sign an agreement with google to run my website "bound by some terms of service" so what right would they have to remove me if I am not bound by those terms?

      This stinks of attempting to extort wordpress to run the web the way google wants, google thinks they can do what they want.

    5. Re:They were begging for it. by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What right does google have to remove them when wordpress hasnt signed any agreement with google.

      Google hasn't signed a contract with WordPress, either. It's their right to lay out ground rules and ban anyone who doesn't follow them.

      Newsflash: Google can do what they want.

      --

      --
      the strongest word is still the word "free"
    6. Re:They were begging for it. by PaxTech · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What right does Wordpress have to be listed in Google's results at all? Google is in the business of providing accurate search results, if someone's playing tricks to direct results to something less accurate, Google has the right to "fix" things.

      After all, if every google search just led to a bunch of spam pages, Google itself would cease to be very useful.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    7. Re:They were begging for it. by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What right do you have to have a website that doesn't link to my site? I never agreed to any Terms of Service with you that say you can not link to me.

      Google doesn't owe them anything. They're indexing them for free, and they can stop indexing them whenever they want if they don't meet Google's criteria for indexing.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    8. Re:They were begging for it. by Saven+Marek · · Score: 1

      but the thing is google is now a public service

      they are something people have come to rely on. businesses too. including government departments and other service industries.

      doesn't that leave google with a responsibility that doesn't stop at the end of your browser?

      what if your electricity company decided they don't like the way your electricity is being used and cut you off? and they were the ONLY ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER and you didn't have a contract with them?

      I think then you'd have something to complain about

    9. Re:They were begging for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks.

      Google is not a public service. It is a company. Spamming like this reduces search effectiveness and reduces Google's brand value.

    10. Re:They were begging for it. by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      There's a rather large difference between a government institution or a regulated utility with a government-sanctioned monopoly and a decent search engine which is neither government-owned nor a monopoly.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    11. Re:They were begging for it. by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      Go outside, break into your electric meter and turn the dial back, leave lots of evidence...you think the power supplier will hesitate to cut you off? You'll be lucky if they don't cut you off at the knees and put you in jail.

    12. Re:They were begging for it. by karnal · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      First off, you do have a contract with the electric company. Second off, for a majority of people in the US, there is ONLY ONE ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER. So no, they can't just shut off your electric. Heck, they're even nice to you if you can't pay for different reasons.

      Google may be relied upon by businesses and other service industries, but until a contract is drawn up, you have no right to bitch. If you are a shareholder, you can vote to have this reversed, but I would gather that a majority of the shareholders would probably turn the other cheek.

      So yes, google is a "public service", but only by in definition of what they do. They definitely aren't the only game in town, and there's nothing to stop you from looking elsewhere (or starting your own search engine company, for that matter...)

      Did I mention they don't charge you a fucking thing when you click "I'm feeling lucky...."?

      --
      Karnal
    13. Re:They were begging for it. by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      what if your electricity company decided they don't like the way your electricity is being used and cut you off? and they were the ONLY ELECTRICITY SUPPLIER and you didn't have a contract with them?

      That's a great analogy because, of course, Google is the only search engine around.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    14. Re:They were begging for it. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1
      Exactly what "terms of service" did they sign to be bound by google?

      In addition to what has already been posted, there's also this and this. Now, here's a cached copy of http://wordpress.org/articles/health-care--mesothe lioma-law-info.htm

      ...and here's a few rules it may break:

      • You represent and warrant that (a) all of the information provided by You to Google to enroll in the Program is correct and current; (b) You are the owner of each Site or that You are legally authorized to act on behalf of the owner of such Site(s) for the purposes of this Agreement and the Program; and (c) You have all necessary right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the acts required of You hereunder.
      • No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.
      • Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
      • Do not participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your website may be affected adversely by those links.
      • I don't know whether the Google AdSense ads are Wordpress's or not. However, if not, it is clear that someone at Wordpress posted them on behalf of Hot Nacho, making them an accomplice.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    15. Re:They were begging for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saven Marek, you're stupid.

    16. Re:They were begging for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing google would have to be concerned with, I would think, is that if they start banning companies or domain names, is that they could be responsible for banning all illegal sites. i.e. you banned wordpress, so why not the following porn sites?

    17. Re:They were begging for it. by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

      That's a really bizarre, if not outright absurd, question.

      Google owes you NOTHING.
      Google is not your mama.
      Google is not your daddy.
      Google is not your debtor.
      Google is not Uncle Sugar's Handout Agency.

      Just like you ought to be, google is an independent agency.

      Their motto is something like "do no evil". They get to interpret that however they like, but so far, they're interpreting it quite well in most peoples minds.

      Google *does* have the right not to be spammed, just as you or I do. It's just that in this case, they're in a much better position to do somthing about it.

      There's no extortion involved. If anything, there was theft of services by WordPress. (Not that I believe such a case would have merit. IANAL, FWIW, ETC.)

  16. Wordpress spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use wordpress on my blog. And i get a loads of comment spam that use keywords similar to the spam that the wordpress website was hosting.

    I wonder if the wordpress website maintainer has aided the creation of spam bots to identify worpress users and post on thier sites using weaknesses of the default install.

    1. Re:Wordpress spam by dustinbarbour · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt that. You get comment spam 'cause your version of WordPress (1.2) is vulnerable to attack. They failed to take complete precaution against cross-site scripting and other methods of spamming.

    2. Re:Wordpress spam by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      And i get a loads of comment spam that use keywords similar to the spam that the wordpress website was hosting.

      This is actually a very interesting comment, and I hope it gets the attention it deserves.

      To clarify, one of the reasons Wordpress is so highly ranked is that, by default, every wordpress install includes a link back to the "home base". Insta-PageRank. Of course, this wouldn't help Wordpress.org for oddball things like mesothelioma for any contextual search engine (I have no idea if Google actually does this, but I've oft dreamed of making a contextual search engine - each link has value only against certain topics/nouns, so for instance a blog about Star Trek would boost recipient links in the ranking of Star Trek links, but not for Britney Spears searches).

      So to make a double pronged attack, comment spam is launched against all of the Wordpress sites to includes terms like mesothelioma. Google visits Joe's Blog, sees mesothelioma, and sees a link to wordpress.org and ranks Wordpress up for Cancer related searches. The subversive content goes up in the rankings not only for generic PageRank, but also for specialized topic PageRank.

      Again, I have no idea if Google actually uses this sort of contextual rankings (they should), but it is something to contemplate.

  17. Fork the bastards by learn+fast · · Score: 1

    Is this one case where forking isn't a bad thing?

    1. Re:Fork the bastards by mopslik · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is this one case where forking isn't a bad thing?

      How would forking help? If you read the article...

      It turns out, that Matt is hosting a bunch of articles on subjects like asbestos, insurance and debt consolidation on his PR8 website in order to cover costs and furthering the project.

      So it's not an issue of Joe Blogger's Wordpress software being used to spam Google (although most blogs are susceptible to this). It's an issue of Wordpress's creator using the Wordpress.org site to host "spam" articles.

    2. Re:Fork the bastards by zxSpectrum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indirectly, the Wordpress installs are being used to spam Google. Joe Blogger's site has pagerank. Joe Blogger has Wordpress installed. Wordpress installs, by default link to the Wordpress.org site. Joe blogger's site passes pagerank to Wordpress. Wordpress hosts spam.

    3. Re:Fork the bastards by michaelkpate · · Score: 1

      Wordform, although it was created for different reasons

  18. What Does This Help by iammrjvo · · Score: 1


    By banning sites, this may do more to hurt the searchers than the sites perpetrating the abuse. There may be some legitimate information on a site that is not found because of the ban. It seems that a smarter tactic would be to set the ranking algorithm not to rank based on links from an abusive site.

    --
    Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
    1. Re:What Does This Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that - they're being bungholes and they deserve what they got.

      Google isn't a monopoly - just use a different search engine.

    2. Re:What Does This Help by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      how about for a random 1% of daily page views the google image href gets redirected to an image on wordpress, you think the slashdot effect is mighty, the Google effect could knock just about anything off the net.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:What Does This Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By banning sites, this may do more to hurt the searchers than the sites perpetrating the abuse. There may be some legitimate information on a site that is not found because of the ban."

      Collateral damage is much more acceptable in the information war than it is in a real war, especially if it gets developers like Wordpress to clean up their act and prevents further acceptance of such sponsorship.

    4. Re:What Does This Help by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      If the page isn't ranked, then it ends up at the end of the list, behind all those that do. When's the last time *you* went all the way to the end of a google search? :)

      (yeah, I know it happens, and I do it sometimes, but most of the time, I've found something before the end or it doesn't exist within my search)

  19. Something fun to do by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny

    Search for mesothelioma and then use Linky to open all links, including ad word links, in tabs. E-Z!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Something fun to do by ErikRed1488 · · Score: 4, Funny
      OK, this is blowing my mind, I clicked on the first ad link on that Google search, which went to maxipharmacy.com. They have news stories on their site, guess what story was first?

      Yep, a link back to this /. story.

      --
      I was not touched there by an angel.
  20. Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Merik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I use wordpress on my blog.

    And i get a loads of comment spam that use keywords similar to the spam words that the wordpress website was hosting.

    I wonder if the wordpress website maintainer has aided the creation of spam bots to identify worpress users and post on thier sites using weaknesses of the default install.

    --

    --

    What is the sound of this sentence?

    1. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here... I really dig WordPress, but I have to delete about 40 comments a week that are nothing but spam adverts for Texas Hold-em and various pharmaceuticals. I'm about ready to chuck it in favor of Greymatter. I used to use Greymatter and had no Spam problems whatsoever. I was lured away though by WordPress' splishy back-end interface and now I get scads and scads of spam posts even though there's nearly no traffic on my site. :/

    2. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by dacaffinator · · Score: 1

      I also get the texas holdem spam. It annoyed me enough to just turn comments off altogether.

    3. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Merik · · Score: 1

      I turned my comments of for awhile as well, but i found a plugin that does a decent job of stopping the spam.

      Its called wp-hashcash.

      It forces a comment poster to compute an md5 hash sum using javascript, a capability which almost all bots don't have, and its invisible to users.

      --

      --

      What is the sound of this sentence?

    4. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by matts-reign · · Score: 1

      This is also the first thing i thought of when i read the summary. I wanted to try out wordpress, so I set it up once on my server ... no outside links, no mention of it to anyone ... and I started getting texas holdem spam. How did the spambots find the page if its on its own? not once anywhere did i mention it in another page. How?

      --
      Waffles rock.
    5. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very simple.
      WordPress by defaults makes your blog ping Ping-O-Matic when you post or update an article. This is a good, discreet way to get your blog known by passers-by who check weblogs.com-like Recently Updated lists.

      The problem is that spammers take advantage of these lists to find which sites are blogs.

      So it's really, not a case of WP helping the spammers out.

      --
      Michel Valdrighi, core WP developer (now where did I put this old slashdot login again?)

    6. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by prostoalex · · Score: 1

      If you posted an entry or a comment, you probably pinged weblogs.com or ping-o-matic, which is default in WordPress. Hence your URL was picked up.

    7. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I use Blosxom on mine. I was getting comment spam so I tweaked things so that comments that contain "http:" don't get posted. I don't get comment spam anymore.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    8. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by molnarcs · · Score: 1

      How does wordpress compare to geeklog? I've been using geeklog for a site dedicated to finding out about the panels used in various lcd monitors and I was planning to use wordpress for another project. Geeklog comes with SpamX as a default plugin that does a pretty good job at stopping spam comments (and sites like groklaw use geeklog) - so what's so cool about wordpress? I was attracted to it by the professional look on their website, but except fo that, at first glance it didn't have anything special...

    9. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      I use both of them, and I must say I'm torn. They both have their pros and cons.

      Geeklog is a pain in the neck if you want to play with the themes. It is also a pain in the neck if you want to upgrade because to them upgrade = reinstall.

      Wordpress is easier when it comes to upgrading and theming, but it's also very limited compared to Geeklog. There also doesn't seem to be as many plugins yet. Things like integrating Wordpress and Gallery I haven't figured out how to do yet easily.

      If you want a very simple blog page, go for Wordpress. If you want a more complex blog page, go for Geeklog.

    10. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you disable the pingback ?

    11. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by molnarcs · · Score: 1
      Ah, thank you :)) I am yet to test the upgrade process - I just began using it recently. I wonder how smoothly it goes (I mean importing the database backups). I am something of a noob in this, but I found running geeklog not very difficult. I haven't tried Gallery yet, but I had some problems with themes as well - they need extensive testing, for some of the themes, even the more recent ones, seems to have some glitches. I found this one (I think it's called smooth blue) to be working pretty well, but both sites are still at a beta stage :)

      Thanks for your comment again, it's appreciated :)

    12. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by molnarcs · · Score: 1

      Ah hah! I just clicked the link to your homepage :))) I guess the Smooth_Blue theme is not a coincidence :)

    13. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      I use WordPress too. I get about 40-50 spam comments a week. Nothing unusual about this except that it's an old blog (moved domain/host) and I've tried to disable comments by deleting wp-comments-post.php

      Does anyone how they're still getting through?

    14. Re:Wordpress collaborating with spammers ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you.

      I'm not making that up.

      I'm going to do the same damn thing.

  21. the problem with that solution by jbellis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you would shortly have SEDO (search engine de-optimizer) specialists who charge you to sic their botnets on your competition... no thanks.

    1. Re:the problem with that solution by gumpish · · Score: 1

      So use one of those things that tells you to type in the word in the box below, and it's all distorted with noise added to defeat character recognition algorithms.

      The same technology that prevents people from auto-generating accounts on various web sites.

    2. Re:the problem with that solution by akadruid · · Score: 1

      you would shortly have SEDO (search engine de-optimizer) specialists who charge you to sic their botnets on your competition... no thanks.

      No... grandparent said "submit for human review", worst they could do would be waste googles time, since 'the competition' would have to merit google's wrath before takedown occured.

      So, SEDO cannot hit Pfizer, only 'Honest Joe's V1Agr@, home of the trillion backlinks', which is hardly a useful no.1 result.

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
  22. Off topic - Google interview questions by hugesmile · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I realize this is off topic, but I just received a call from Google, based on an application that I submitted.

    The screener said she calls back about 75% of the qualified resume she receives. She said she would ask me three questions, and if I could answer 2, I would move on in the interview process. The process is - screen (today), phone interview (45 minutes), 2nd phone interview (45 minutes), then a trip to Mountain View CA for an 8-hour interview.

    I had to answer two of the following 3 questions:

    Q1: What's the running time for Quick sort? A1a: Average case = n log (n). A1b:Worst Case is n-squared.

    Q2: Assuming speed is most important, and umlimited memory, what's the FASTEST way to tell how many bits are ON in a 32-bit value? A1: Perform an array lookup using the 32-bits as an index into a pre-computed array.

    Q2b: Suppose you didn't want to waste so much memory... A2b: Break the 32 bits up, say, into 4 8-bit values, and perform 4 lookups into a 256-entry array. Add the 4 numbers together.

    Q3: What power of 2 is closest to 2 Billion. A3: 2^31

    Interestingly, this was for a MANAGER position!

    OK.. so, on to the next interview. Stand by for more info next week!

    1. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by mr_tommy · · Score: 1

      Best of luck; interesting questions!

    2. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interestingly, this was for a MANAGER position!

      So do they ask management questions of programmers? Human resources questions for janitors?

    3. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Merik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you do realize that Q1 and Q3 could be answered in less than 5 seconds by anyone with knowledge of how to properly query google.

      running time for quicksort: second result has answer

      powers of 2: first result has answer.

      --

      --

      What is the sound of this sentence?

    4. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

      Yes! And they have a user ID in the 500 thousands?!?
      It's a fraud! I tell you!! That user ID has been hijacked!!! Call th cops!!!

    5. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      If this is a manager of software engineers, what is wrong with a knowledgeable manager, instead of a bean-counter? Our managers are required to spen 50% of their time still programming.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    6. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These questions were so simple, you don't need google for them!

      20 seconds to solve them all.

    7. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize that Q1 and Q3 could be answered in less than 5 seconds by anyone with knowledge of how to properly query google. Most people who know how to "properly" query google would be aware of common word exclusion and wouldn't include "for" and "of" in their searches.

    8. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by hugesmile · · Score: 1
      Yes, but I took the call while driving. I didn't think that googling while interviewing while driving was such a good idea.

      Fortunately my memory didn't fail me!

    9. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These questions were so simple, you don't need google for them!

      20 seconds to solve them all.


      20 seconds? Your not very bright are you? Took me 5 seconds, left me with 13 seconds to pick my noise and still beat you by 2 seconds!

    10. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    11. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I was watching 20 tv stations and listening to 30 radio stations on the same time while solving them

      I'm sorry I didn't mention that.

    12. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Which simply means you have too many managers and not enough programmers.

      Being a good programmer is not a prerequisite for being a good manager of sw engineers any more than having good management skills is a prerequisite for being a good sw engineer.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    13. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Merik · · Score: 1

      true, but knowing google automatically excludes such words, it is more effiecient, for me, to leave them in when Highlight-select searching with firefox.

      --

      --

      What is the sound of this sentence?

    14. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, put up a page with what happens on the whole process. It would be very interesting!

    15. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No, it probably means that their ignorant HR people have set the salary bands in such an idiotic way that the programmers have to be given a title of "manager" in order to earn the money that they deserve. But, of course, they don't actually manage anybody.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Off topic - Google interview questions by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >Fortunately my memory didn't fail me
      I may have once known the answer to the quicksort quoestion, but now I don't care and I don't bother wasting memory space on it. If I really needed to know, like for trying to decide the best algorithm for quickly sorting some data, I'd go look it up. I had somehow thought that perhaps Google was past the need for someone to tell them how to quickly sort some data, but apparently not.
      Also, I would have hoped that Google's HR people were not of the type that required their interviewees to devote their brain cells to memorizing nonessential information that could easily be looked up. But why should Google be any different than any other company?
      P.S. Bogosort is still my favorite.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  23. The situation at Google... by alexandreracine · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google : You are cheating!
    Wordpress : Here is 1000000$US
    Google : You are so kind!

    It will come... oh yeah...

    --
    No sig for now.
  24. 'Do No Evil' is pretty broad in its meaning... by HerculesMO · · Score: 1

    But I have to admit, thus far, Google has used intelligence, fairness, and equality to counter situtations. They've been quick to fix problems with their software (we remember the Google bugs earlier this year).

    If I wasn't so Linux-stupid, I would be applying there on a daily basis :) I'm sure persistance is a redeeming quality at Google -- they are persistent in making a quality product and service, with great efficiency and management of the EVIL spammers :)

    Kudos Google!

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  25. Preventing discussion by pcgamez · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    as posted by "Podz" on the Wodpress forums.

    "There will be no discussion of the matters raised in the linked article above here. As puppy18 has said, this is a support forum.

    Any threads about this will be deleted.
    This is NOT an attempt to stop news or prevent discussion - it really is the case that this forum just is not the place for such a discussion to happen. "

    1. Re:Preventing discussion by delirium_9 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how much time you've spent on the Wordpress support forums but Podz (and many others) do a great job of helping people who do have support problems. Be it by giving them the appropriate link to look at, clarifying some concepts, or going to the person's site and figuring out some site-specific solutions. I think I've seen discussions where he's (with permission) actually gone into someone's server and fixed stuff up himself.

      The point of this is that Podz and other mods like him do a lot of work providing timely support, and probably feel that if this thread took hold on the forum they'd be spending a lot of time talking about matt's actions instead of providing support.

      Plus, for everyone using Wordpress 1.5, there is even a link to this issue (the Wordpress.org hosting Hot Nacho content issue) in the dashboard (which is how I found out about it).

      Does no one else have a problem with how misleading the submission title is?

      --
      Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
  26. Right by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    It's not hard to be optimized when your content is optimal.

    When your content is useless fucking spam, you've got to use dirty tricks.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:Right by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. The content that ranks the best isn't the content that reads the best.

      It's hard to compete when your content isn't optimized. Some sites get around this by showing an optimized page to the search engines and another, more readable page, to users. Unfortunately, a nonoptimized page can't compete with an optimized page if the PR of the two sites are the same.

      mod_rewrite is the greatest thing since sliced bread ;)

    2. Re:Right by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Hire someone who knows HTML, then, instead of a the first dumbass that comes to an interview saying "yeha, I know how to use Dreamweaver". It is *always* possible to develop pages that degrade well with regards to textual content. Pages that don'et read well to a search engine are poorly designed, and probably inaccessible. The best ranking content should never have "best viewed in..." anywhere on the site. Ever. Anything less is either laziness or lack of knowledge, both of which are rectifiable situations.

    3. Re:Right by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what I'm saying. It doesn't have much to do with html. h1 tags and such play a slight role, but ptimizing content for search engines is about having the keywords a certain number of times in content taht is of a certain size.

    4. Re:Right by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      That's a sleazy trick - the kind that the OP was saying isn't required to get good page rank. :)

      To optimize a site's intro, you put an accurate, semi-verbose description of the site's content on the front page. Coincidentally, that also results in a useful front page.

      BTW, I don't know of a single sucessful search engine that still increases rank based on word frequency (within a single page). Those engines that *do* are so full of spam that no one uses them.

    5. Re:Right by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      I do this for a living and word density is a slight factor. You can't rank for something if the keyword isn't on the page. Someone that has the keyword on their page a few times will rank higher than someone that only has the keyword once (all else being equal). This doesn't mean that putting the keyword 100 times helps you. It actually hurts you, but you knew that already. That's why I said "a certain number of times" in my previous post. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I don't want to give away my secrets.

  27. Soooo by ShatteredDream · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we assume that WordPress **users** are not going to be targeted by Google as a result of this? According to the WordPress site there have been about 100,000 downloads of version 1.5 and that means that a whole swath of legitimate users could get taken down by association if someone gets vindictive.

    What the developer did was wrong, but no offense to Google, stop playing favorites here. Ban casinos and porn before you ban wordpress for spam because 90% of the spamming out there is done by gamblers and pornographers. This is such a small "victory" against spammers on Google that it's akin to marching a foot inside a country's sovereign territory and declaring victory over the enemy. Online casinos and pornographers do the most damage to Google so it's only appropriate for Google to go after them first.

    Again, it's good of them to punish this developer, but let's be honest. In and of itself it won't be worth jack shit to stopping spammers or even slowing them down. If Google really wants to stop the problem, it needs to exclude any page with pornography, gambling and get rich schemes from its ranking system. Not saying it shouldn't index them, but when it scans the pages periodically, if it finds any comment or trackback spam on any blog or forum, it should disregard that page for the purpose of its ranking system.

    1. Re:Soooo by wootest · · Score: 1

      Yes, we can assume WordPress users are not going to be targeted by Google, because WordPress the software itself did nothing wrong - the WordPress team did or did not (depending on your definition of wrong). Believing anything else is similar to thinking that users of Microsoft software will have antitrust suits filed at them just for using Microsoft software.

    2. Re:Soooo by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Until Google says: "WordPress is the devil, use OUR service or don't get indexed!"

    3. Re:Soooo by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

      "Until Google says: "WordPress is the devil, use OUR service or don't get indexed!"" So what? That is Google's right. No one is forced to use their service or be indexed by it. Google are perfectly free to exclude garbage sites. There are plenty of search engines and indexes that will include them.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  28. I don't get it. by hollismb · · Score: 1

    So, did they remove pages/sites that are running Wordpress, or did they remove pages from Wordpress.org? Cuz both seem to still come up in Google results just fine.

    1. Re:I don't get it. by mopslik · · Score: 1

      So, did they remove pages/sites that are running Wordpress, or did they remove pages from Wordpress.org?

      I suspect the latter. The Wordpress.org site is hosting hidden content, not the average user's blog.

    2. Re:I don't get it. by hollismb · · Score: 1

      Well, that would mean a Google search on Wordpress wouldn't come up with links to Wordpress.org then wouldn't it? But they sure as hell do. After reading some of the articles, it seems more like Wordpress' creator's site is what may have been removed, not Wordpress itself. Poorly written submission, me thinks. Doesn't give any clear information at all.

    3. Re:I don't get it. by tpwch · · Score: 2, Informative

      They removed the pages from wordpress.org/articles/

      --
      Posted by a Debian GNU/Linux user
    4. Re:I don't get it. by blogeasy · · Score: 1

      It appears that Wordpress still has about 434,000 pages still indexed by Google.

      --

      Browse the Information Directory
  29. Next ban eBay! by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking of google adwords spammers, eBay has got to be the worst. Every other search I do I get some generic and irrelevant eBay ad with an incomplete sentence containing one of my keywords.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Next ban eBay! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

      My favorite one during the past presidential election was to search for "vote". Along the side was EBay's ad with the headline "Votes for sale!"

      It seems that's what they do - whatever you search for, they put "for sale" on the tail end of it and hope you click on it.

      --
      I'm a big tall mofo.
    2. Re:Next ban eBay! by Casca · · Score: 1

      So we need a proxy for google that you run your searches through that strips out any results from a blacklist of domains or URLs or something along those lines.

      Either that, or the net needs a Karma system.

      --
      Casca
    3. Re:Next ban eBay! by Lendrick · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Find CHANDRA X-RAY OBSERVATORY on Ebay!

      Find COLON CANCER on Ebay!

      Find DOWNLOAD METALLICA MP3S on Ebay!

      Yeah, Ebay ads suck.

    4. Re:Next ban eBay! by Dalroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clean up your google searches!

      Every time you do a search on google, add the following:

      -amazon -google -search -ebay

      You'd be amazed at how much cleaner the search becomes! :)

      Bryan

    5. Re:Next ban eBay! by ajs · · Score: 1
      Mozambique
      Great deals on Mozambique
      Shop on eBay and Save!
      www.eBay.com

      It just never gets old ;-)
    6. Re:Next ban eBay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      foobar -ebay

      wow. that was difficult.

      i suggest you try chewing gum and walking at the same time next.

    7. Re:Next ban eBay! by clandestine_nova · · Score: 1

      Ooh, thanks for the tip. I think it would be nice to be able to customize your results like that automatically - something that Google could certainly do themselves. Of course, it would be the work of a few short minutes of FF extension as well.

      --
      Discworld.
    8. Re:Next ban eBay! by nsasch · · Score: 1

      Buy Karma Low Prices. Smart Deals. See the difference. Shopzilla.com Cray Supercomputer New & used Cray Supercomputer. aff Check out the deals now! www.ebay.com I clicked on the link, and guess what's on the page! 0 items found for cray supercomputer

      --
      Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
    9. Re:Next ban eBay! by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Well, it costs eBay money every time one of those useless links is clicked, right? Why not just click 'em like crazy?

    10. Re:Next ban eBay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      the "extension" is unessecary -- it can be done with custom keywords. just make a url with those search terms already in it, and use that as the base for your custom keyword url.

    11. Re:Next ban eBay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks, that really does help... but is there a way to make that happen by default ?

    12. Re:Next ban eBay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Except it affects the search results in unforseen ways:

      If you're looking for the x-ray observatory, a normal google search for chandra returns the expected links at the top. But with the "clean" search query, NASA and Harvard give way to some Indipop singer named Shiela Chandra, who has an evil Flash-only website.

    13. Re:Next ban eBay! by hawk · · Score: 1

      They're about the only one I've blocked from my adsense listing.

      Cheeky buggers offered great deals on *ME*

      hawk

    14. Re:Next ban eBay! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      My favorite one during the past presidential election was to search for "vote". Along the side was EBay's ad with the headline "Votes for sale!"

      My favorite is to search for certain races of people...

      The eBay ad comes up different every time.

      "New and used Mexicans.
      Check out the deals now!"

      "Great deals on new and used items.
      Search for negros now!"

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:Next ban eBay! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      How about this one:
      Free Tibet at Amazon.com
      Maybe I should take them up on it. Then I could sell it to China.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Next ban eBay! by Valiss · · Score: 1

      Every time you do a search on google, add the following:
      -amazon -google -search -ebay
      You'd be amazed at how much cleaner the search becomes!


      Perhaps Google needs an advanced search feature that filters out retail/sales?

      --

      -Valiss
    17. Re:Next ban eBay! by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      You're missing arguably the most useful subtraction: -blog. Blogs are fine for what they are, but the extremely high clique numbers in blogspace seem to give them ridiculously high page ranks. In the cases where I need information that may be best found in blogs (e.g. new web design tricks), I can remove the exclusion.

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    18. Re:Next ban eBay! by Saberwind · · Score: 1

      My favorite adwords ad:

      Nuclear Weapons Products
      Find it on eBay! Free registration.
      Nuclear Weapons & much more (aff)
      eBay.com

    19. Re:Next ban eBay! by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      "Votes for sale!"

      That's odd. Whenever I search on that term, I get redirected here. :)

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    20. Re:Next ban eBay! by goldfndr · · Score: 1

      Just remove -search from "clean" and you'll get the expected results.

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
  30. If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After This by Mike626 · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...one option to check out is http://b2evolution.net. Open Sourced, PHP and MySQL based. I've been using it for three months.

    It's flexible, and I like it. You might too.

    --
    http//injoke.org -- Culling The Interesting
  31. none by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The current issue of 2600 had a letter suggesting people do exactly what Wordpress was now caught doing. Funny thing is, the letter writer was given a dismissive response, because everyone thought it wouldn't work (at least not for long.)

    1. Re:none by jalefkowit · · Score: 1
      Funny thing is, the letter writer was given a dismissive response, because everyone thought it wouldn't work (at least not for long.)

      Well, Wordpress.org got busted hosting the articles, and their previously formidable PageRank has now been reduced to zero. (Seriously, check it yourself with Google's toolbar or another similar tool.)

      So wouldn't it be safe to say that the skeptics were correct and this tactic does not, in fact, work? If by "works" you mean "lets you game AdSense indefinitely with no negative consequences".

  32. This is interesting by taskforce · · Score: 0

    I find this quite worrying actually... it shows that google actually has the ability to more or less exclude a website from the mass internet. For instance if they excluded CNN from google searches, then CNN's traffic would doubleless go down.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  33. Good Alternatives to Wordpress, If You Need Them by bryankwalton · · Score: 1

    It seems unfortunate that an open-source organization is getting caught doing something possible shady. It is really unfortunate because there are people out there that will hold F/OSS projects to a higher standard.

    I have never used Wordpress and so do really know much first hand about it as a program. But it does seem to fill a certain niche in the blog software arena. For myself, I will continue to use Blosxom.

  34. Geez - what a kneejerk by Dethboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reaction...

    Go here: http://planet.wordpress.org/

    Read. Maybe read it again if yer slow. Sounds like the guy was simply trying to raise a few bucks to support what is IMO one of the best blogging apps out there.

    1. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite frankly, I don't care if a spammer is doing it to support his development of a blogging app, his crack habit, or a nearly-bankrupt orphanage.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Dethboy · · Score: 1

      Quit using the term "SPAM" - it's either a can of meat of unsolicited email.

      Neither really apply here.

    3. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      So the ends justify the means. Let's all just start mugging people and giving the proceeds to charity, then.

      I've never used WordPress, so I can't speak to its quality. But if it's really that good, he should be able to drum up funds the old-fashioned way (through venture capital).

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    4. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simply trying to raise a few bucks

      You forgot "Think of the CHILDREN!!!"

    5. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His motives aren't the problem. His methods were pretty crappy. I hope this doesn't damage the WP project itself, as it seems like a great piece of software which I was planning to use (and still am).

    6. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      If the software does not have a revenue stream, it seems like only kind of stupid venture capitalists would invest in it . . . unless they had ulterior motives like gaining tech to spam search engines.

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    7. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      functionality wise, it's really good. The code itself is a piece of junk.

    8. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by mizhi · · Score: 1

      Bloody vikings.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    9. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      If they had a good enough revenue stream, they wouldn't need any help. The idea behind venture capitalism is that companies with the potential for a good revenue stream receive investment money to see it through. Until recently, Amazon.com hemorrhaged money consistently. Yet investors kept investing (and still do), because they see the potential there.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    10. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by javcrapa · · Score: 1

      And having the additional traffic from slashdot today is not going to help ( : "project like WP (and his collaboration with me on Ping-O-Matic) has enormous resource needs. Enormous. This is not your average 1000-hits-per-day blog with pictures of kittens and rants about high school homework. This is a project that garnered over 100,000 downloads in just a few weeks. This is a project with around 150,000 posts in its support forums. And that doesn't even include the 3500+ pages in the Codex, with over a million page view"

    11. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quit using the term "SPAM" - it's either a can of meat of unsolicited email.

      Sure, whatever you say, Don Quijote.

    12. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Pac · · Score: 1

      What about a spammer who's trying to develop a blogging app in order to support the crack habit of a nearly-bankrupt orphanage residents? Would that be enough move your cold heart?

    13. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      But it is not that the basic Wordpress model does not have a good enough revenue stream. The basic model has no revenue stream. Amazon may be a bleeder, but it has a heck of a revenue stream.

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    14. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by k8to · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the part where the blog developer and the spammers are different agencies?

      --
      -josh
    15. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the part where the blog developer hosted the spam pages, hence making himself a spammer too?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    16. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by version5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a load of crap. What do you think the end result would be if every open source app decided to do the same? Quite frankly, its disgusting that a GPL'd project would go out and piss all over the very commons that it depends on for its success, especially after all of the blog community's efforts to combat just these sorts of abuses. To have one of our own aid the enemy is unforgivable. I am furious, and I will not be placated by whimpering about "Matt's a nice guy" or "He needed the money!"

      Its very seldom that these things happen, but when they do, we have an obligation to object and call the guilty parties to account for their actions. While harsh, boycotting WordPress and forking the code is an option that's available. Or less harsh, but more amusing, lock Matt in a room with Richard Stallman for a week.

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

    17. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by elemental23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By that logic, the e-mail spammer is innocent, it's the company that pays him who's responsible.

      Bullshit, they're both responsible. The Wordpress guy is receiving a financial benefit for it from the company who hired him, so he's hardly innocent.

      And I'm speaking as someone who likes Wordpress.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    18. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by k8to · · Score: 1

      Yes indirection has no effect on anything.

      I mean, if I buy a product from a vendor who supports a politician who supports a war which kills people, I'm guilty of murder myself!

      What I mean to say is, the poster suggested comlete equivalence. The wordpress developer has suggested he was not in complete awareness of the situation. If you don't believe him fine. However, even then,selling addspace and then being too lazy to take it down when it turns out to be spam is not the same wrong as pursuing and actively perpetrating spam. I was merely expressing my annoyance with the false equivalence.

      Yes, false equivalences simplify thought, at the expense of accuracy.

      --
      -josh
    19. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by hauntedunix · · Score: 1

      http://photomatt.net/2005/04/01/a-response/

      New, more thorough response

    20. Re:Geez - what a kneejerk by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Your analogy is a bad one. If the politician gives you a gun and you kill someone with it, you're just as guilty as he is, even if he paid you well and you used the money to support open source.

      If the developer is so stupid that he didn't realize the guy paying him to put 300,000 webpages on his highly-ranked site was doing so to spam, he's an idiot and I feel less sorry for him than if he just had no ethics.

      I don't think anyone suggested he was completely unaware of what was going on (i.e., that his site had been hacked), which would be the only defense against me considering him to be a spammer himself.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  35. Google Spam Report by frankie · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean like the Google SpamReport page? It exists.

    They used to link to it at the bottom of some (random?) search result pages, but I haven't seen it posted publically in a while. Perhaps it didn't actually work as well as you or they hope it would.

    1. Re:Google Spam Report by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or maybe they got flooded with spam reports, and are still trying to sort them out before they accept more...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  36. The more things change... by suitepotato · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...the more they yadda yadda yadda. Invent any new tech for transmitting useful info on the net and sooner or later someone finds a way to massage the system to their advantage. Fix it and they find a way around. Now if they were totally pro-active across the board at Google and shut this down completely no matter what the search terms, we'd be living in a perfect world but they can't and as good as they ever get, someone will get around it.

    BTW, how long until Google becomes the Microsoft of search engines and a rebellion begins because we realize we've come to rely on them to the point that other avenues have withered away but at the same time they are far from perfect and perhaps in our view then possibly malignant?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  37. their own shit don't stink by Rinisari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Blogger is full of this shit, too.

    Just keep hitting "Next Blog" and you'll find a ton of blogs set up for advertising, just like those.

    1. Re:their own shit don't stink by adpowers · · Score: 1

      If you would have RTFA, you would have noticed that WordPress doesn't host blogs, they only have offer the software. However, the software links back to them, increasing their PageRank. They took advantage of this by putting hidden links on the front page that link to short, spammy 'articles'. Now, contrast to Blogger. Blogger has no hidden links on the front page to any spammy blog. Blogger is a blog hoster, not just a provider of software. The blogs you link to were created by users that signed up through the site and spammed it. Now, I find those Blogger spams as annoying as any other, but this is a completely different beast here. Hopefully Blogger finds a way to remove the spammy ones.

    2. Re:their own shit don't stink by dr.badass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference being that Blogger's spam isn't created by the people that run Blogger.

      The uproar is over the fact that the lead developer and site maintainer of Wordpress was responsible for hosting the spammy pages. Even the page for donations has the hidden links.

      The stated reason for this is to cover his costs and hire a full-time developer, but this raises a lot of questions about the need to do so -- What exactly are those costs? And is it really worth hiring a full-timer if it has to be funded with spam?

      It doesn't help his case that he's presently on vacation in Italy.

      (I'm not trying to bash him personally -- just trying to clarify the issue for those that don't understand.)

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    3. Re:their own shit don't stink by satoshi1 · · Score: 1

      You can remove the link. It's easy, just get rid of the A HTML tag, and you're good to go! w00t!

    4. Re:their own shit don't stink by willfe · · Score: 1

      Others have already commented that this is apples-to-oranges, but I do want to agree with you that the stupid blogspam shit (everywhere, not just blogger.com) is absolutely rediculous.

      For an even more entertaining few minutes, grab a throwaway account at GMail or Yahoo and sign up for some of the idiotic click exchange sites out there. There's a few legitimate-ish ones like blogexplosion.com and blogazoo.com (not linking since I don't want to seem like I'm shilling :) but even they have plenty of journals in rotation like those you linked to. The more scummy ones (mostly those that offer "auto-surf for credits" and promise to drive tons of new traffic to your sites) have almost nothing but junk sites.

      It amazes me that people think they can make money putting up a junker journal like that, submit it to some link exchanges, leave an auto-surfing browser tab open, and drive traffic to their useless sites -- then expect the money to roll on in. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

      --
      Read my stuff.
  38. About time dammit by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Google would do this kind of thing much more often, it's results would stop becoming watered down. They should make their policy simple. Googlebomb google and stop getting linked from Google. After a few businesses get nailed and put out to pasture the rest will learn and their results will once more become relevant.

    1. Re:About time dammit by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      SEO's use thousands of domains. If they block one they have plenty more. There are far too many for google to handle via manual review. The SEO's also use different ip's, different servers, etc. This is simply an arms race between the evolution of the search engines algorithms and the SEO's ability to manipulate the changes made by the search engines.

    2. Re:About time dammit by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I agree. That's why they need to stop providing links to the destination. The source itself is meaningless as you pointed out. While they can have thousands of servers, IP's etc googlebomb someone, they can't practically have thousands of website without diluting their own resources. Kill the destiantion, not the source in this case.

    3. Re:About time dammit by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      This is true to a degree. The thing is that a lot of SEO's don't redirect. Here's an example http://www.xboxgamer.info/

    4. Re:About time dammit by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      They should make their policy simple. Googlebomb google and stop getting linked from Google. After a few businesses get nailed and put out to pasture the rest will learn and their results will once more become relevant.

      I agree completely, although it'd help to provide a decent explanation for people to explain why it's so important not to try to manipulate results, particularly in terms that marketing people and CEO's can at least understand even if they don't like it.

      I have one particular friend who's really into marketing, and does it as a profession. We disagree strongly on a lot of things to do with that, but he's so absolutely enthusiastic about what he does that I've given up trying to talk to him about it.

      In his mind, he's not really out to cheat or step on other people, or give himself any unfair advantage. As far as he's concerned, he's just entirely interested in "presence building" for his websites. This isn't just for his business, either -- he experiments with it as a hobby, and tries to get his personal websites highly rated. It hasn't even occurred to him that he might be annoying the search engines or people who use them. As far as he's concerned, any low-rated content that he has is only low rated because people might not have seen it yet, and he's trying to "help along the process" in some way.

      And his websites are hideous clutter to look at, too, as a result of everything he does to get them rated highly. Once you've bypassed the actual content, about 9/10 of each page is a combination of emptiness (often background-coloured text), hugely sized words that are often random and have little or nothing to do with the main content that he's presenting, and massive amounts of links to all sorts of weird places.

      I find this type of attitude frustrating to deal with, because whenever I place content on the web, I figure that if it's important enough then the search engines will promote it. As far as I'm aware, this is also what's intended to happen. It's not something that many marketing people can comprehend, though.

      I'm not sure if providing a decent explanation of what search engines want in order to work properly would do much to help. Unless there's one available, though, I don't think there's much hope for any of these people to understand. If Google provided such an introductory document beyond the token amount hidden in their FAQ, I could at least point my friend to it to demonstrate that what he's doing really goes against what the search engine opertors would like him to do in order to get his content promoted appropriately.

  39. Amongst all this... by Teja · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe it is important to note that no flaming should be directed against Matt (founder of Wordpress). Afterall, all this was done so that it would improve the Wordpress project. Here is a good response to all this. Spam is spam, but there is a new side to all this.

    --
    - Teja
    1. Re:Amongst all this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Wordpress fanboys, sure he did it to support the project. He spammed to support his project. If I steal money out of a cash register to fund my opensource project does this mean its ok? Dumb ass...

    2. Re:Amongst all this... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so shitty spammer tactics are great as long as they help a good cause, is that your position?

  40. You might have screwed yourself posting here by RonBarr · · Score: 1

    I know I wouldn'd hire a manager who disclosed this stuff on Slashdot. Not that it's a trade secret or anything, but it shows a startling lack of discretion.

    1. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I hear that all Google's questions can be found on a cheat blog on Wordpress. They've switched tactics and started people-spamming Google HR to get their agents into high Google rank positions.

      (Of course I'm kidding...)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't like a lack of discretion at all... More specifically, I'm remembering that one idiot who started working at google and had nothing better to do than saying some annoying things in his blog...

      Anyway, I liked to read his post :)

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by hugesmile · · Score: 1

      I'm not too worried. They won't be able to match my salary requirement anyway.

    4. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by MHobbit · · Score: 1

      Yep. Since they're talking about how Matt needs some money to continue with WordPress, I'm going to donate $20 or so to him. I use WordPress and I love it, and haven't gotten around to donating anything.

      --
      Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
    5. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      As pompous as you are I hope noone ever gives you a job. I would hate to have you as a manager. Oh yea, learn to keep your mouth shut too, what kind of manager goes and tells the world about the interview process he had? It shows you are a very self contained person and like to boast yourself (definitly not manager material).
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now that's funny!

      OK, let me guess. You believe that information sharing is a bad thing.

      People who prep for the SAT are bad people?

      People who share information about what the SAT is like are bad people?

      FYI, the cost of housing is 3 times what it is here, so I can confidently say that they won't meet my salary requirement.

      I have been a manager for more than 20 years, and she was pushing me into a first level management position, so I am confident that it won't make sense.

    7. Re:You might have screwed yourself posting here by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >People who prep for the SAT are bad people?
      Everyone preps for the SAT. The problem is that some people cheat and take classes or read books specifically for the purpose of trying to get higher scores on the SAT. This sounds very similar to a link spammer or SEO, right?
      In order for everyone to be on equal ground, everyone should prepare for the SAT in the same way: by showing up on the day of the test and taking it.
      Otherwise it is not a test of your scholastic aptitude, but a test of how well you can study for a scholastic aptitude test, which is not a particularly useful skill in the real world. Well, I take that back, the ability to find and exploit loopholes IS good for the individual, but not for society at large.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  41. I like Wordpress by randomErr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Damn, and I really like Wordpress. I'm using it and Thingamablog as my two main bloging tools. I wonder what kind fallout this means for Wordpress from its developer?

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  42. Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by imsabbel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    just now from their frontpage:
    <div style="text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;">
    <p>Sponsored <a href="/articles/articles.xml">Articles</a> on <a href="/articles/credit.htm">Credit</a>, <a href="/articles/health-care.htm">Health</a>, <a href="/articles/insurance.htm">Insurance</a>, <a href="/articles/home-business.htm">Home Business</a>, <a href="/articles/home-buying.htm">Home Buying</a> and <a href="/articles/web-hosting.htm">Web Hosting</a></p>
    </div>
    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by spacefight · · Score: 1
      <div style="text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;">

      I'd say they try to hide it... at least in case of not letting it render by the browser for the users eye.
    2. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, they DID try to hide it: the css "text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;" means the layer is placed, oh, 9000 pixels to the left of the left edge of the screen, where nobody can see it.

    3. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by nsasch · · Score: 1

      If I was stupid enough to do SEO type things, I'd add some code in: if ($ENV{'AGENT'} =~ "GoogleBot") { print $asbestos_code; } AGENT is not the right variable, I'm aware, it's because I'm too lazy to look it up.

      --
      Make your computer faster: rm -rf /mnt/windows/
    4. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      To you and all the others:
      I meant they didnt do a cover up (replacing their frontpage and claim "it was an accident"), but still keep the spammy one.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      That's because the person responsible is on vacation, not because they aren't trying to conseal what they've done.

    6. Re:Well, at least they dont try to hide it.... by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

      Left edge of the browser window.

      Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose they were designing for exceptionally wide screens.

      --

      --
      the strongest word is still the word "free"
  43. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

    Seconded. Flexible, powerful anti-spam mechanism and very active community.

  44. what a shame by Hallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First they don't tell anybody about it. Then they stop people from talking about it.

    Stuff like this is just sleazy, and calls into question the character of the devs and site admins. Either that, or it's just a really stupid, really immature move.

    I wonder if they've realized they've just upset a lot of users, who are now wondering if they can trust the devs and the software they produce anymore. I wonder if they even care.

    1. Re:what a shame by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "First they don't tell anybody about it. Then they stop people from talking about it."

      #1 - The first rule of Wordpress is, you do not talk about Wordpress.
      #2 - The second rule of Wordpress is, you DO NOT talk about Wordpress.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    2. Re:what a shame by prashantp76 · · Score: 1

      I used to use WP for blogging, I'm quite dis-enchanted by all of this and will be switching to another piece of sw.

      Shame because as a piece of OSS software it was pretty good, even got arstechnica's blog of the year.

    3. Re:what a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site admin = Matt, the other devs don't even have access to the site. They weren't even notified of this "decision".

  45. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by Stone316 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Or nucleus... I've been using it for over a year and its pretty stable with lots of plugins. I installed a bunch of blog software before I decided on nucleus.

    A couple of questions.. anyone have stats out there on which is the most popular OSS blog software? There don't seem to be many comparisons on the web. I've been considering trying some new software but I don't want to waste time with one that doesn't have a good community behind it.

    Link: Nucleus Homepage

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
  46. So spamming for "good" is OK? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So spamming and trashing search engines is OK if you think it is a good cause?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:So spamming for "good" is OK? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Spamming? Wasn't he just hosting articles? Does Google now dictate the content of other people's webservers as a condition of their being indexed?

    2. Re:So spamming for "good" is OK? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Does Google now dictate the content of other people's webservers as a condition of their being indexed?

      Indexed by Google, I might add. Yes, they dictate what they themselves do.

      "Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?"

  47. It's a pain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My best friend was diagnosed with canine mesothelioma early this January.
    I hadn't heard of it before then, either.
    I'm glad he's a dog instead of a human, because his odds are a lot better than what I'd get if I had it.

    Ontopic part: Googling for more information was a real PITA due to the type of keyword spamming this article is talking about.
    (That is, until I entered "canine mesothelioma" into Google. The first link in that search is the most definitive link I've found. It's from the UGA Veterinary School in Athens, GA where my buddy is getting his chemo, which is working fine, thank you.)

    I was quite disgusted with all the dead-end links and lawyer-spam that I had to wade through. One can imagine having to deal with that crap while trying to get more medical info on behalf of a (human) friend.

  48. Fine, don't read the article! Here's the scoop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happened: Photomatt, the guy who pretty much calls the shots when it comes to WordPress, was paid by a company called Hot Nacho to put up 100,000+ "articles" at WordPress.org. The point of these articles is to help Hot Nacho game Google. Furthermore, WordPress.org used a CSS trick putting links to the articles at -9000pixels on the WordPress home page. This is called "cloaking" and is explicitly forbidden by Google.

    Why this is bad: WordPress is an open source piece of software. It's okay for the people running it to try to make money off it, either by asking for donations or selling t-shirts or anything else they can think of (www.textdrive.com comes to mind), but to knowingly break Google's rules and to receive money from a company whose practices many would consider shady without any feedback from the WP community is just a damn shame. A lot of people don't care and think everyone is being too critical of WordPress. They think asking for "transparency" in an operation like WP is stupid. Well yes, and no.

    A lot of people have given a lot of time to WP. Did they have any say in this? From what I've read, they didn't. So this is one person taking the ball and running with it...he didn't ask if it was a good idea, he didn't ask for alternative ideas, he just decided that he knew what was best for the community and WordPress. Well, he didn't. Take a look at Wikimedia. When they have a donation drive, you know exactly how much money they get and where it's going. You can find out about the drive in advance, and read about it afterwards. What about WordPress? Just 100k+ articles popping up without a word until after they are discovered...

    WordPress has made quite a name for itself, and is a great example of open source software in action. But this incident is a blight on the community. People will see this, not know all the facts, and make their own interpretations and ideas. Some will distort this to help their own FUD..."Why contribute to projects who are just going to try and profit off your code in any way they can?" Matt sounds like a great guy, and seems to have the purest of intentions, but not much good can come of a decision like this. Everyone is watching right now, and it's mistakes like this that open source could really do without.

  49. Wow by Amelia+G · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I'm surprised by this. I had noticed Google traffic to Wordpress-powered sites dropping off. Do people think Google has known this for a while and been slowly penalizing Wordpress sites in its listings?

    --
    chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    1. Re:Wow by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Why would Google penalize the users of the software for something the developer did? It's wordpress.org that's going to suffer for it (and rightly so), not Joe User's personal, WP-powered site.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    2. Re:Wow by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      I know that I personally have seen about a 50% decrease in Google traffic to my sites which are powered by Wordpress. This may just be the engines correcting for oversending to blogs in the past, but the decrease is a pretty visibly trackable trend.

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
  50. built-for-adsense-sites are being punished by mcguyver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Built-for-adsense-sites have been becoming more and more popular over the past two years. It's refreshing to finally see google actively go after these sites:

    built for adsense sites

    This would be a non-issue if the Google search engine and Google Adsense program were not part of the same company. Or if the built-for-adsense website were not using Adsense. It's strange that someone would put so much work into creating these spammy sites then overlook something so obvious. You are putting your fate into the hands of Google, the judge and jury, when you rely on both Google as a search engine and Google as your ad network. I doubt wordpress would get noticed for spam if they were using another contextual ad network to monetize traffic or another form of online advertising.

    1. Re:built-for-adsense-sites are being punished by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      That is because most of Google's revenue comes from shady ad practices. Many of the weird spammy sites you mention, those that provide you with a list of "related" links and a search bar are powered by Google. Don't believe me?
      Go to www.gardening.com. Though the links are cloaked, if you trace the network activity, you end up pulling stuff from Google.
      It is Google's way of being slimy while publicly pretending to be the clean cut good guy.

    2. Re:built-for-adsense-sites are being punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've decided to personally boycott Google Adsense. I've switched over to Firefox and installed the Grease Monkey extension along with the Hide Adsense script. Works great. As far as other text based ad programs, AdBrite is a nice alternative with attitude. It's run by "Pud" from FuckedCompany.com

  51. Microsoft SPAM by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    Within 10 minutes of implementing such an approach, an article would be on slashdot telling people to go to all Microsoft pages and mark them as spam and withing 15 minutes all Microsoft pages would be considered spam by Goooooogle.

    1. Re: Microsoft SPAM by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      That would be awful. I mean sure I can use the search field on MS site to search it but.. without google how would I get at the MS site in the first place?

  52. *whoosh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (that's the sound of a joke going over your head)

    1. Re:*whoosh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't jokes, by definition, funny?

  53. WordPress can't think of another way to make $$$? by kiwidefunkt · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a wordpress user. I didn't see any "Wordpress needs your help, and $5!" text on the site lately. Maybe I missed it? I haven't donated to wordpress because there are a thousand open source projects out there and it's not so easy to decide where to send your hard earned, free software supporting cash. But if I saw wordpress was in trouble, it'd make that decision a lot easier. There's no way they exhausted all other options before dipping into the Google-TOS-defying low they've reached. Oh well. Live and learn. Nothing gold can stay.

    --
    www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
  54. I use a pLOG anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the title says I use the far superior (and faster!) pLOG blogging system. php/mysql, open source and a new version 1.0 just released (Officially on April 1st).
    I've seen wordpress and checked it out and it's far to slow and very data base intensive. Not a very good system IMHO
    You can check pLOG out at www.plogworld.net or see a working version 0.3.2 (about to be updated to v1.0) at my own place, blogireland.ie.

    Thankfully in the new release they've added an image code verification for comments to kill those casino bots ...I fecking hate the twats :rants: ...and the filters have been upgraded with better options to deal with comment spam.
    I did hear that wordpress was having the same problem, so maybe googlit is being a little bit unfair ..
    And there adsence program? ...No F@$%ing comment :rants some more:

    Smeggle

  55. AdSense success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. Your Sig by sunya · · Score: 1

    Hi,

    I am curious about your sig. I've tried googling for it, but am unable to find the reference. Where is this quote from ?

    --
    MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
    1. Re:Your Sig by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      vernor vinge, a deepness in the sky.
      Everything more would be a major spoiler....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  57. Actual Adwords Info on Mesothelioma by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    I have an adwords account and just checked on the projected traffic for "mesothelioma". The results are as follows:

    estimated clicks per day: 1.9
    estimated average cost per click: $0.73
    estimated cost per day: $1.73
    estimated average position: 12.3

    Again these are just estimates, through google, but who knows how much it costs to be #1 position.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  58. I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if he had been selling crack to kids that would be ok, since he is funding an open source project?

    Spamming isn't really the same as selling crack to kids (obviously), but unethical is unethical. No matter where the money is going to.

  59. Legitimate lawsuits by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Oh, and to clarify/refute something several other people have stated - asbestos was an accepted insulator/fire retardant for a while, but then we realized that it was dangerous and banned it. Unfortunately some dirtbags, such as Grace, decided to continue making products laced with cancerous asbestos for years after the dangers were common knowledge.

    I just get irked at the implication that companies are being retroactively attacked for products that we all thought were great - most of the people who are being sued were guilty of the worst forms of negligence, fully knowing the risks of their products.

    1. Re:Legitimate lawsuits by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Aye, the companies knew full well that asbestos was bad for you long before it was public knowledge - just like the tobacco companies and their products. And, after it was public knowledge, they continued to work with it anyway.

      My grandfather died from lung cancer after working for years with asbestos. I have no love for anyone who made money off that business.

      (Could my grandfather have done something else? He had his own business once, but wouldn't deal with the kickbacks required for construction contracts, and lost it. Does anyone else care? No, but don't reply that he could have quit and found another job. He had a family to feed.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  60. It's the Link-Farmers Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appears that an outfit calling itself "Business Barn LLC" has been trying this with high-ranking weblogs, too.

    "The company offered to pay me $300/month for the use of a subdomain off of my "sayanythingblog.com" domain. I would point the subdomain to a page of advertising hosted on their servers and they'd send me the money via Pay Pal. I checked out the advertising and there was no porn or anything involved so I agreed. Seemed like a good deal to me and with hosting costs rising as this page gets more and more popular I'm not much inclined to turn down opportunities to make money from this page." --here [if you must]

    Also: here, and here.
    1. Re:It's the Link-Farmers Again... by Vengeance_au · · Score: 1

      I just followed that link, and the following "Ads by gooooooogle" were present;

      Beat the Adwords System
      Access 100 Million People in 10 Min The Definitive Start Guide

      Improve Your Rankings
      Increase Link Pop. W/ relevant text on quality sites. See how! .... and so on. So 2 things that suprise me are

      a) google is letting people who offer google bombing services advertise through Adsense
      b) this page, about a guy who is repenting for a previous google infraction is, due to the words in his page, providing links to the same sort of companies!

  61. High Dollar Keywords by waynegoode · · Score: 1
    To see what Overture is paying on keywords, check their bid page. mesothelioma has a high bid of $52.08.

    There is a LOT of money on the line here.

    1. Re:High Dollar Keywords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the $52 word that surprises me, it's that ebay appears to be paying $1/word for ANY word. They are wasting their $ too. I used to click the ebay ad everytime it came up in the context of something i was trying to procure. Problem was that the damn thing was never forsale on ebay! It was such a waste of time that I don't bother clicking the ebay response anymore.

      What really ticks me off is that I sell on ebay and would expect them to use that % of the fees I pay a little more wisely when marketing.

      Or can't the adsense words be updated to current listings!

  62. My response to the story by PlasticSquid · · Score: 1

    My response to the story was to go to the site and donate. Now I am writing something up suggesting some other more legitimate ways to raise cash. I use Wordpress and like it a lot, but I hadn't given a dime for software I would have paid a pretty penny for. Now that I have given them some cash, I won't feel like a total hypocrit when I suggest they clean up their fund raising.

    --
    Plastic Squid Harmless Toy
  63. mod this down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cut an pasted from above.

    nothing like plagerisim to get modded up on slashdot.

    1. Re:mod this down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing like plagerisim to get modded up on slashdot.

      Your English teacher would be proud.

    2. Re:mod this down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he knows plagiarism because he used to use it all the time on his spelling tests.

  64. Use a WordPress Spam-Blocking Plugin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are lots of good spam-block plugins for WordPress. I basically receive *ZERO* spam comments or trackbacks that actually get through.

    Personally, I use Spam Karma:
    http://unknowngenius.com/blog/wordpress/spam-karma /

    But there are loads of other good plugins:
    http://codex.wordpress.org/Plugins/Spam_Tools

    Don't complain about spam comments and trackbacks--get even and get rid of them!

  65. uhm by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So?

    They're preventing discussion of a non-support issue in a support forum.

    How is this not reasonable?

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:uhm by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      I posted it, i'm not saying it was entirely unreasonable. The fact of the matter is that it was the only place to discuss it anywhere on the site.

  66. sleazy by suezz · · Score: 1

    this is sleazy - he should be up front and honest - open source needs to conform to a higher standard and not get caught in this kind of business dealings.
    he should of put a note on his sight or in the license of the product.

    I hope other developers don't try to pull this crap. I also hope distributions make sure this kind of crap doesn't go on in the software they are distributing.

    If we want the world to use or software how can we get them to use it when slimey business deals go on like this - good intentions or not.

    I don't want to recommend a distribution to my mom and have her computer used as a source of perpetual income for one developer. That is one of the reasons I choose to use open source - Might as well go back and get caught in the Microsoft upgrade cycle.

  67. Spam is spam is spam. by argent · · Score: 1

    This was hashed out long ago, back when spam was mostly theoretical and only a few of us were trying to figure out what to do about what was clearly going to be a huge problem that we couldn't get anyone to pay attention to.

    And subsequent events haven't changed anything.

    It doesn't matter why you're spamming, you can't treat any reason or method as "acceptable", doing so will only redirect the floodgates and destroy whatever loophole you allowed.

    And lo and behold, that's what happens, whenever someone shows even the slightest sympathy for the spammer.

    Spam is spam is spam.

    1. Re:Spam is spam is spam. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is spam.
      Spam clogs up your inbox and it clogs up the search engine results pages.

  68. Sure they try to hide it.... by greed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What on Earth does an outdent of 9000 pixels, and setting the overflow to "hidden" mean, EXCEPT that they are trying to hide it?

    After all, very few of us browse the Web by reading the raw HTML and JavaScript. I find all the bad HTML code is really bad for my brain.

    1. Re:Sure they try to hide it.... by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe most of you couldn't read it. I'm one of the unforunate few that hacked Firefox to show me everything shifted to the right by 10,000 pixels. I suppose there is a price to having so much freedom...

    2. Re:Sure they try to hide it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe his comment was sarcastic.

    3. Re:Sure they try to hide it.... by eggz128 · · Score: 1

      View > Page Style > No Style is hacking? :-)

  69. It might if you breath the dust. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Asbestos dust may eventually cause mesothelioma. Plenty of people in body shops during the 50's-70's used to bang this stuff around all the time and are still alive without mesothelioma.

    Plenty of people who have played with it *once* and are on their last legs too. Beh...damn crap and more crap. Asbestos is great stuff tho, they are starting to use it again in buildings because it is so good at what it does, just don't be stupid and smash it into dust...and you'll be fine.

    I used to be an apprentice back when we had the transition from asbestos brake pads to semi-metalic, rule was always soak everything in water. Now all we've got to worry about is nano-particles from the semi-metalic pads...and some people are saying that's worse then the asbestos.

    You can't win in any direction.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  70. Ping-O-Matic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By default, WordPress sends out update "pings" with posts (or a fresh install) to the Ping-O-Matic update service:
    http://pingomatic.com/

    I strongly suspect spammers continually scan Ping-O-Matic for new blogs and new posts. My blog is updated sporadically and I always notice an uptick in spam attempts right after I post.

    Don't despair. WordPress has a lot of excellent anti-spam tools. I use Spam-Karma, but there are many others:
    http://codex.wordpress.org/Plugins/Spam_Tools

    Add a good anti-spam plugin, and you shouldn't see any spam on your WordPress blog. It's really a great tool.

  71. Spam is spam is spam. by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Back when unsolicited bulk email started, people said "that's not spam! Spam is only on usenet! We have to come up with a new word for this!"

    I said then, and I say now, hogwash.

    Any advertising by flooding a common communication channel can meaningfully be described as spam, whether it's Usenet, email, IM, Text messages, or search engine spamming. There's no point to trying to draw a magic circle around part of the problem and pointing outside and saying "that's not really spam".

  72. Some money by northcat · · Score: 1

    The guy's making some good software (along with others) and he's giving it away freely (speech and beer). He just wanted to make some money. It's sad that now a lot of bad reputation is coming to him along with that money. I for one won't think of him badly. Quote:

    The articles are given to him by Hot Nacho, a startup that pays freelance writers to generate 300-800 word articles about specific topics. All advertising revenues go directly to Hot Nacho, and he's paid a flat fee for hosting the articles and ad banners.

    Matt said he was skeptical at first, but the money is helping to cover his costs and hire their first employee. "The /articles thing isn't something I want to do long term," he said, "but if it can help bootstrap something nice for the community, I'm willing to let it run for a little while."

  73. Interesting... by doormat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just downloaded WordPress last night - to replace my homespun blog software I wrote back in 2001 (for my blog that I started all the way back in 1996 - it was just me writing HTML for everything). I guess I'll be sticking with my code for a bit longer now, until I find a suitale replacement. I surely dont want to support a company that does this...

    Perhaps I'll be even rewriting my software, since I cant find anything that I like.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Interesting... by Baricom · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at Textpattern? It's simple, fast, and easy-to-use, once you get the hang of it. I will probably be moving to it once version 1.0 comes out, which should be any day now...

      Best of all, unlike another open source ethically challenged weblog system, they make their money honestly, by running a hosting service called TextDrive.

  74. google should try harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should fix THEIR problem. If someone can do this type of thing google should find a way to block it. Blacklisting or banning is a poor band-aid.

  75. What? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    So giving away software doesn't generate profits all by itself? I'm shocked!

    All joking aside though, I have to wonder how much more of this we may see. There has to be a pretty great temptation by some of these sites to take advantage of their popularity. Nothing wrong with that but some of them, I'm sure, will choose something underhanded like this. This is especially bad for an open source project because it not only damages their rep, but it damages the open source community as a whole.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  76. Raise a few bucks? by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    It's called stealing.

    I supposed you rob banks, and say it's for starving orphans?

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:Raise a few bucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need more robin hoods!

    2. Re:Raise a few bucks? by soulhuntre · · Score: 1

      Stealing?

      So a group of peopel who advocate pirating movoes, software and music (/.) draws the line at spam. Gotcha :)

      --
      --> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
  77. google for nuclear weapons by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    Nuclear Weapons Products
    Find it on eBay! Free registration.
    Nuclear Weapons & much more (aff)
    eBay.com

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  78. Strange they should target Wordpress... by IdJit · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When they themselves own Wordpress' direct competitor.

    Lately, Google seems to be adopting an "if you're threatened, crush the competition"...very far indeed from the quirky fun-loving corporate world they like to show to the public.

    1. Re:Strange they should target Wordpress... by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Did you even RTFA? The Wordpress site was engaging in behavior that is very clearly disallowed by Google in their terms of service. "Search engine optimizers" doing these same things are removed from the Google index all the time, why should WP be treated any differently? People like this who manipulate search results for financial gain are doing all Google's legitimate users a disservice. Damn right their ranking should suffer.

      And I'm speaking as someone who likes Wordpress.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  79. They're history by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    If they really care about OSS they can give their code to a more reputable group. But they are history, and deservedly so.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  80. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow.

    As a Word Press user I must say that looks impressive.

    It actually has currently available features that I want and that Word Press developers seem to not care about, like multiple blogs.

    Matt the Word Press King is an idiot. I don't care what the justification is, there is no excuse for spam.

  81. and it is a no-no by adpowers · · Score: 1

    From Google's own site:

    http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

    "Don't deceive your users, or present different content to search engines than you display to users."
    (scroll down to "Quality Guidelines - Basic principles")

    Different content for the search crawlers is a SEO trick that is looked down upon by Google. I've seen this in practice and it really irritates me.

    Andrew

    1. Re:and it is a no-no by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      It's a no-no, but it's widely done and google doesn't usually find out unless the site gets reported. This doesn't happen too often.

    2. Re:and it is a no-no by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      See, here's what gets my goat. Why doesn't Google include a "report this spammer scum" option? I thought that they at one time included a "these results are not what I expected" link, but I don't see it any more.

      I'd love to be able to help Google get rid of SEO spammers. Bayesian filtering as applied to search results?

    3. Re:and it is a no-no by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      Because someone can just report their competitors as spam over and over and over again. Also, if there are a few billion sites then it would take a lot of man power, and money, to manually filter it. Yahoo tried and it didn't work.

    4. Re:and it is a no-no by fastfinge · · Score: 1

      I believe web devs have absolutely know right what so ever to ever try and figure out what browser I'm running (give a menu; I'll choose the browser. If I want to view your IE content without IE that's my own problem, thank you), so I usually change my user-agent and screw JavaScript etc. One would think these seo sites would detect by IP address or something, but they don't. I'm amused when surfing as Yahoo! slurp or googlebot or msnbot how many sites just look at the user-agent, and change the page accordingly, even though this is expressly against the rules. If someone codes a plugin where I can push a button and report these sites to someone, I would be happy to do it.

    5. Re:and it is a no-no by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after I posted it I thought "Oh, people will just automate the 'this is spam' report." So Bayesian is out.

      But what about checking of spoofed/cloaked pages? Hitting 'this is spam' could fire off a re-index of the page using something other than GoogleBot as the useragent string. Something the SEOs can't key mod-rewrite off of.....

    6. Re:and it is a no-no by jaydonnell · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why they don't do that and for all I konw they might be doing it. If they are they aren't doing much of it because I see a lot of cloaked pages.

    7. Re:and it is a no-no by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Well, they have to be careful with automated checking. A lot of times content on pages is very dynamic or parts of the page are slightly random. They have to make sure it is actually a page layout change or SEO without getting false positives for websites that just have some random content (like random quotes or something).

  82. But SPAM is not spam(was: Re:Spam is spam is spam) by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

    I think the GP's point is that SPAM in all-capitals is a registered trademark of Hormel Inc. The flood of garbage interfering with communication is spam (or Spam if it's starting a sentence).

    Hormel have always taken a very sensible approach to this issue, requesting only that people do not use the all capitals version, unless referring to the spicy ham product. Compare that to the way some other corporations think they can literally own words. I think we should give kudos to Hormel and respect their request.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  83. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by DaveJay · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a fan of Drupal myself; I moved to this platform from WordPress after becoming dissatisfied with WordPress's software (as opposed to payback for spammy transgressions).

  84. Re:mod this up by Merik · · Score: 1

    Notice that my blog address is in my username profile and it matches my link. I posted as AC cause i couldnt remember my password, then i remembered, and reposted my comment so i would get my user + 1. You can look my up nick up on metafilter, fark , and fazed if your really that bored.

    --

    --

    What is the sound of this sentence?

  85. If you use wordpress then by KhalidBoussouara · · Score: 1

    remove all links to them from your blog. I know I did. I realise this was all the work of one person and that many contribute to the wordpress project. However considering the spam code hidden in their main page I think it is not good to link to them for the moment. You can edit the wordpress files yourself or download the edited files from my site (click my sig link and see the latest posting which has a link to a zip).

    Or click this link to download the zip with the required files. Upload over your original files and remember to back things up.

  86. Even better ... by bayvult · · Score: 1
    This gets rids of alot of the blog spam

    -amazon.com -ebay.com -blog -trackback -wiki -site:wikipedia.org -site:blogspot.com -site:typepad.com -site:livejournal.com

    Removing bogus catalogs from the search results is harder. For now, I use Yahoo! search, which isn't as clogged with zero value catalog pages as Google.

  87. You don't understand, man by mcc · · Score: 1

    They're on a mission from God!

  88. temporary in theory by Siva · · Score: 1

    if this guy's story is any evidence, they should be able to get themselves unbanned by cleaning up the offending pages...

    --

    Keyboard not found.
    Press F1 to continue.
  89. Can we PLEASE stop calling it "Optimizing"?? by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 3, Insightful
    SE"O"s do NOT optimize search engines; they simply attempt to make their paying clients appear higher in the list, no matter how shoddy or irrelevant their product is, by trying to fool and abuse the page ranking algorithms.

    It'd be more accurate to call them "Search Engine Spammers", because that's exactly what they do.

  90. Re:WordPress can't think of another way to make $$ by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

    Is it even possible of defy Google's TOS when you don't agree to it before they index you?

  91. Stacking the deck is not fair by Linuxathome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I don't care about the fact that Matt wants to make money from the work he did for wordpress. I'm more concerned over the fact that he's engaging in something that I wouldn't do myself -- that is, stacking his site with keywords that pay disproportionately more than other adsense keywords.

    I'm willing to look past what Matt does because he's essentially allowing another service (Hot Nacho) usurp his pagerank and I have a feeling he's going to drop Hot Nacho, but I'm having a harder time forgiving people like Chris Pirillo who promotes nonsense such as this guy's scheme to get more money from adsense. It sounds too much like the get rich quick real estate schemes of the late night infomercials. Everyone, please! If you use adsense then live by the adage, if it sounds too good to be true, then most likely it is. Don't ruin it for the rest of us by doing this grey area shit. We all will lose out! Sure the tricks may work in your favor in the here and now (like a pyramid scheme), but at who's cost in the long run? Sites who put up legit information about a certain adword will be sideswiped by sites who cheat. It's not fair. If google can't fix the cheats, they'll just yank it for everyone across the board.

    Additionally, by tolerating behavior such as this, we're opening the door for other sites to steal legit material written by those who've poured too much research and time in each article. Play by the rules and everyone will be happy. If you're a leecher, hoarder, or just plain criminal, I wish you the worst case of hemorrhoids, dysentery, and cholera combined.

  92. Isn't the net donations model fundamentally flawed by Amelia+G · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see so many types of sites which request donations. Everything from software dev to girls panhandling in LiveJournal. People get up in arms if they find out that someone they donated to has any other source of income, but fundamentally the whole donations concept seems flawed to me in the way it tends to work online. (1) Person has thing they want to spend money on which has at least some vague possible value and they don't want to or can't cover it out of pocket or through a legit revenue stream. (2) Person asks for donations, probably not exactly disclosing their profit and loss statement the way an official nonprofit would have to. (3) People donate. (4) People find out that either the money was spent on something else or the beneficiary had some source of funds besides their donations. (5) People get pissed off at whatever person or org got the donations. (6) Some other person or org asks for donations and people go through the cycle all over again. I'm not going to pretend I've got the answer to end all questions on this one, but I know that the whole donations button thing kind of rubs me wrong because it seems to always lead to a flap like this one and it seems unfair to creative people who suck it up and just make something cool. That said, I doubt whatever donations Wordpress has received cover all the costs and certainly someone talented enough to make such kickass software could have made bank getting a second job using the time spent on that software. Then again, he probably could have just covered it. Messing up search engine results aside, I don't think the whole donations thing makes it make sense for people to freak out after the fact that they didn't know where the money for Wordpress was coming from. If one is concerned about whether something is 100% donation-funded or where the money really goes, then that needs to be researched before one clicks the donate button.

    --
    chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
  93. Dictate? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Does Google now dictate the content of other people's webservers as a condition of their being indexed?"

    Google can't dictate content except on its own sites (google, froogle, etc), and they certainly are not doing it here. However they are perfectly free to leave junk sites out of their index. Google exercising freedom over its own index is not censorship nor is it dictating the content of other's sites.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  94. Re:WordPress can't think of another way to make $$ by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

    Good point. I had not thought of that.

    --
    chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
  95. "hot" keywords? by Quixote · · Score: 1
    Can somebody please put up a list of "hot" keywords at Google, so that I can periodically Google for them and click on each and every one of the ads?
    Lets say a click costs the advertiser $10. Say a 100 of us do this "search and click" thing once a day. Boom, that's costing the advertisers $1000/day each.

    Come on, people! Get crackin'.

    1. Re:"hot" keywords? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? just to be a jerk? The AddSense program covers the obvious text adds in the side column of the google results.

      Most ads are from legit people who are willing to pay money for the add based on keywords becuase they know their site is a good match for the search term.

      Before my consulting business got good word of mouth reputation I bought about 4 keywords on google for the rare type of science/IT that I'm involved with. My costs ranged from a few cents up to about 40 cents per keyword and my bill was never more than 40-50 bucks a month. Most of the people who followed the link ended up spending a bunch of time on my site downloading my conference presentations, whitepapers and FAQ articles. I even got some clients out of it.

    2. Re:"hot" keywords? by schestowitz · · Score: 1

      That is costing them more so I'm afraid this I must point out. Google does not disclose the proportion of revenue that it takes, but for every corrupt use of AdSense, Google earn money as well. However, they can also lose trust in the long run, thereby losing revenue.

      --
      My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
  96. Blogger removes 'spammy ones' (sample size=1) by applecore · · Score: 2, Informative
    In my blogger-surfing history, I have clicked 'Next Blog' a handful of times, but I don't recall seeing many blogger spam sites.

    But grandparent post said they can be found, and grandpa is right. I found Snowy Whistler, a spam site advertising whistler-portal.com. Some quick Google searching fails to produce that site in the results. Maybe they have more luck with Yahoo, MSN.

    I feel comfortable that Google is on the job, and the six spam sites that GP lists either don't or soon won't produce results in Google searches

    --
    Test signature: Brett Walker
  97. If he wanted to raise some money... by ddefenba · · Score: 1

    ...do it like everyone else: Free iPods!

    --
    "Play Outside on Sunny Days." - Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto
  98. Two adwords compromised by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

    Now the two adwords mesothelioma and debt consolidation are going to get rocked by hundreds of thousands of slashdotters. From an earlier post, the mesothelioma adword give revenue of $40/click. Be responsible and don't hammer the ad; for on the other end are lawyers and they will certaintly take suit against Google if they see a huge spike in traffic and draw the connection.

    --
    I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
  99. It wasn't a good point by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    His point wasn't very good. It is common knowledge that anyone can robots.txt themselves out of the Google index if they want.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:It wasn't a good point by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      Most people who just have blogs or personal sites do not know the day they start their site that they can exclude the respectful engines from indexing them. Maybe I only think this because I've had sites for so long and the engines used to be a nonfactor to me, but I think most people create a site before they learn about how to get traffic to it and I don't think they bone up on Google TOS before they start sharing their content with the world. I'd have to look up the code to keep a site out of the index if I wanted to. Obviously, that would not exactly be an all day job, but I think it is a good point to make that Google indexes sites whose creators have probably not read their TOS or agreed to them. I don't think this means that Google is then obligated to index junk or anything, but I found the point interesting.

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    2. Re:It wasn't a good point by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

      I've had a perfectly good web site of decent scholarly interest up for some time now. Google has refused to index it.It in no way violates their terms. I think it is unfortunate, but not horrible, and not a denial of my rights.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    3. Re:It wasn't a good point by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on that to a large extent. There will be societal issues revolving around access to information eventually, but I'm not sure determining those is the job of the private sector. I'm assuming that you have not used robots.txt to block spiders. Any idea why your site would not have been indexed?

      --
      chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
    4. Re:It wasn't a good point by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
      "There will be societal issues revolving around access to information eventually, but I'm not sure determining those is the job of the private sector"

      When it comes to determining content of your own site, I am 100% emphatic that the "job" goes to the "private sector" so to speak. That is the 1st Amendment, after all.

      "Any idea why your site would not have been indexed?" No, but someone said that Google would have indexed me if I had paid Google.

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  100. wow by bluequartz · · Score: 1

    this is going to get REAL interesting heh

  101. Re:But SPAM is not spam(was: Re:Spam is spam is sp by argent · · Score: 1

    I think the GP's point is that SPAM in all-capitals is a registered trademark of Hormel Inc.

    I don't think he would have included email spam if that was the case.

  102. Re:Fine, don't read the article! Here's the scoop. by rhizome · · Score: 1

    WordPress has made quite a name for itself, and is a great example of open source software in action. But this incident is a blight on the community. People will see this, not know all the facts, and make their own interpretations and ideas.

    Yes, but even if you know all the facts, it becomes clear that just because a piece of software is open source it is still possible to completely fuck it up. Even if it's only one of the developers who makes a bad decision. How do you fork a piece of software away from bad perception? Maybe you have to fork away from the developer himself.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  103. Lying to People by Lying to Robots by SEOs by billstewart · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Google Pagerank's objective is to use robots to guess which pages will be interesting to humans, and present the interesting pages first and the boring ones later. There are three ways an SEO can help you with this:
    • Tell you to write content that's actually interesting to humans. (Editors do this professionally, and pagerank originally attempted to do this by guessing that if people go to the effort to put links on their web pages then the targets are probably interesting to those people.)
    • Make sure that your interesting content is presented in a way that robots can find it. (An FAQ that tells you to put your keywords in titles and META tags can do this, or an HTML editor tool can do it automagically, but some people do need to pay someone else to RTFM for them, and theoretically an SEO can make money doing it.)
    • Lie to the robots so they guess that your customers' actually-uninteresting content is probably interesting, so the robots show the humans the boring SEO-assisted pages first instead of the actually interesting pages. This lying is the main business that effective SEOs really engage in. (Ineffective SEOs are in the business of lying to their customers about being effective SEOs, but they and their customers deserve each other and sort of by definition don't have a high enough pagerank to worry about.)
      • "Sneaky attacks" are SEO lies.
      • "A very closely monitored network of domains" is SEO lying too.
      • Hijacking blog comment services is really annoying SEO lying.
      • Robogenerating lots of pages with lots of popular search keywords, especially if you're building them into URL names, is SEO lying.
      • Robogenerating them without actually storing them anywhere might be technically interesting SEO lying, though disk space is so cheap these days that it might not be necessary.
      • Hijacking real pages using 302-Redirect attacks is technically interesting for about 15 minutes, but is really nasty spammer lying.
    Googlebombing by using sneaky techniques to promote your "403 Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" and "Miserable Failure"->"whitehouse.gov" pages was technically similar to SEO lying - but it was clever and amusing metacontent, and deserved its 15 minutes of fame, and watching the sleazy Republicans reply in kind was amusing too, but it's Been Done Now.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Lying to People by Lying to Robots by SEOs by rjelks · · Score: 1

      Nice post...I wish I had mod points.

    2. Re:Lying to People by Lying to Robots by SEOs by chiapetofborg · · Score: 1

      Tell you to write content that's actually interesting to humans. "A very closely monitored network of domains" is SEO lying too. did it ever occur to you that this network of domains could actually be content that's actually interesting to humans. There are SEO companies, that produce gobs and gobs of interesting content and get customers because they have a good pagerank?

  104. Paintball Guns for Tagging Bad Drivers by billstewart · · Score: 1
    I've heard that people occasionally call in rude drivers' license plates to the police non-emergency numbers to report them as drunk, or to the state DMV Smog Police to report them as badly smoking vehicles, but involving the police is rude. And police are like vampires - they're not supposed to come in your house unless they've been invited, but once you've done that you often can't get them to leave.

    Vigilante Paintball Gunning, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from these problems. Somebody who drives badly gets an ugly paint-splattered car, and the only problem is that the paint's mostly on the back of their car and not on the front.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  105. Re:But SPAM is not spam(was: Re:Spam is spam is sp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bad, you're right. Dethboy was not protecting Hormel's interests, merely being ignorant.

    VC
  106. Who owns the supposed startup spam co Hot Nacho? by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

    I see that the Hot Nacho site looks fairly corporate and uninformative, but its whois info is public and it has been registered for many years, yet it does not have links in. It seems like, if an SEO spamming co would be able to do anything, it would be able to get links in to its own site. So this company no one has ever heard of before which no one (total of approx one teensy site) has linked to before goes to Matt and offers him enough dough that it looks worthwhile to him to spam Google? I feel like there is a piece of the story missing. I want to know who owns Hot Nacho.

    --
    chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
  107. Similar to DeLorean by nitsua · · Score: 1

    This is similar to John Delorean doing a drug deal to keep his car company alive.

  108. like this from view source by Jayfar · · Score: 2, Informative

    on wordpress.org view source and look for the following:

    div style="text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;

    and in that div are the invisible spam links. The word press gang has to be pretty unsophisticated if they thought nobody would view source and catch this eventually. And they still have tyhe offending code on their main page.

  109. Re:Wordpress and Gallery integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The G2 developers have been working on cleaner WordPress and Gallery integration. Thread Here

    In the meantime, there's a plugin that allows easy posting of Gallery image to a WP blog -- WP-Gallery:
    http://geoffhutchison.net/blog/categories/wp-plugi ns/

    There's also Gallery-RSS for keeping track of recent updates to your Gallery:
    http://www.smartbrother.org/archives/2004/12/31/ga llery_rss-announce/

  110. Not using comments page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since WordPress (and many other blog packages) have open source and open posting protocols to work with external software, spam bots don't typically use the actual comment form.

    Indeed, this is one good way that anti-spam tools filter away spammers -- by checking if a personal actually filled out the form!

    If you want to block WordPress spam, check out any of a *large* number of plugins. (I use SpamKarma, but YMMV.)
    http://codex.wordpress.org/Plugins/Spam_Tools

    1. Re:Not using comments page... by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      Cheers.

      They're such a pain in the arse to deal with. I wish they'd realise that comments won't appear without moderation (on my blog) and give up.

  111. Bloggers? by Exitar · · Score: 1

    C'mon, get a life!

  112. The end for Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google is going to try to shut down Blogger's competition, they have lost touch with reality. Does Google think that they are the only search engine? Using keywords to feed ads has been common practice since before anyone had heard of Google.

    A large % of general internet traffic is robots! I wouldn't be surprised if 20% of all internet traffic was non-human--it would be foolish NOT to have keywords in place to attract new surfers. This is just reality. Do you think ebay would have an affliate program at all if this wasn't the case? Absolutely not. You simply use keywords and text to drive traffic to ads--that's been the practice since the beginning--and now even more so that meta tags are pointless--Google can't do a thing about that, and they never will.

    I've been online long enough to see browers come and go--the same for search engines.

    I won't be using Google any longer...
    Hotbot.com DMOZ.com altavista.com

  113. Worst headline ever? by jbezdek · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who noticed that Wordpress has not, as of this writing, actually been banned by Google?

    You may have intended to write "Wordpress MAY BE Banned By Google" or "Wordpress TO BE Banned By Google?" But "Wordpress Banned By Google" as a headline is just plain wrong.

    1. Re:Worst headline ever? by Olf · · Score: 1

      Try searching Google for 'WordPress'. You won't get any links to wordpress.org (the official WP-homepage), nevertheless many link to other WordPress related sites. So I'd say the headline is right.

  114. hahahahaha, you stupif fuckcunt by Phrekie · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fewer Junk-chars you say? Ok, how about this, FUCK YOU!?

  115. Miserable Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that everyone by now knows how to influence Google's rankings. For example, just type "miserable failure" into the Google searchbar.

    This works exactly the same way as what Wordpress has done.

  116. Re:Isn't the net donations model fundamentally fla by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    Nah, the "net donations model" isn't flawed, it's hopelessly hippy hoppy fluffy bunny naive. Anyone with sense knows that it takes money to live, therefore people with sense don't work for free. If some smart-but-naive person wants to give away free software, I'll take it and laugh at his plea for "donations". On the other hand, if he has the guts to state a reasonable price, I pay it. I respect people who make useful software and know its value; I have nothing but amused contempt for people who do not value their own work enough to state a price. And I give them exactly what they ask for--nothing.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  117. Re:Fine, don't read the article! Here's the scoop. by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

    Good thing it's Open Source and open to a fork.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  118. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by elemental23 · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, Wordpress also evolved out of the original b2 codebase.

    --
    I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  119. So? by GeekFu · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is *not* Google's internet. What people do on their own webpage is their own damn business. Who gives a flying flip if it's "against Google's rules"? I believe the site is hosted in the United States, and last I checked, in most of those states, the 1st Amendment still applies.

    How is what was done any worse than a googlebombing, or any other "abuse" of Google's indexing criteria? This technique is not new. This technique IS NOT the same or similar to e-mail spam. Perhaps Google needs to work on its ranking criteria. Like most tech companies, when they were small they embraced the hackers, now that they're big they and their fanboys seem to be about to begin attacking them.

    Matt has spent more time working on the Wordpress project than most of these whiners spend masturbating, which is a lot. It's sad that his work and recognition has made him a target of these leeches.

    A mistake in judgement, among many months of doing things right, was made. It was nothing more than a P.R. error. I wish people would just grow up and deal with it. Threatening to boycott a free product is just stupid.

    1. Re:So? by KD5YPT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um... unfortunately, all ranking program depends on honesty on the end user in one way or another. Google's pagerank depends on the assumption that many people are honest (most search engine depends on everyone being honest). However, in this case the website DELIBERATELY tried to game Google's search engine for their own benefit.

      http://wordpress.org/support/topic.php?id=23657

      or here's the key excerpt from it...

      "The content in /articles is essentially advertising by a third party that we host for a flat fee. I'm not sure if we're going to continue it much longer, but we're committed to this month at least, it was basically an experiment. However around the beginning of Feburary donations were going down as expenses were ramping up, so it seemed like a good way to cover everything. The adsense on those pages is not ours and I have no idea what they get on it, we just get a flat fee. The money is used just like donations but more specifically it's been going to the business/trademark expenses so it's not entirely out of my pocket anymore."

      Yes, Google don't own the internet. But they do OWN the search engine algorithm that we use. While I might not agree with Google's action, I do understand the reasoning. You will be mad too if someone deliberately tried to screw around with your creation.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:So? by Baricom · · Score: 1

      This was not any old error; this was completely and utterly stupid. Wordpress got a huge boost in their user base from Six Apart's recent PR blunder, but I think they're going to find that they just ruined it. In my mind, linkfarming is obviously and completely unethical. He should have known better, and Wordpress is going to lose a lot of market share because of this.

      I wasn't planning on moving to Wordpress anyway because the software phones home, but this is even worse. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even SCO wouldn't make a misstep as bad as this.

      Yes, I agree this is probably not illegal. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.

    3. Re:So? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "What people do on their own webpage is their own damn business."

      Which means what google's doing on their own webpage (i.e., dumping wordpress) is their own damn business, so I don't see why you're getting your panties in a wad over it.

      "I believe the site is hosted in the United States, and last I checked, in most of those states, the 1st Amendment still applies."

      I know good trolls. Good trolls are friends of mine. You, sir, are no good troll.

  120. Moderator system by Linuxathome · · Score: 1
    So use one of those things that tells you to type in the word in the box below, and it's all distorted with noise added to defeat character recognition algorithms.

    It's called CAPTCHA.

    I'd like to add that finer control could be made with, say, a moderator system with a karma rating to weed out the SEDO's ;-).
  121. Another idea by gidds · · Score: 1
    Actually, one idea I haven't heard of anyone implementing is to make use of the source of information that's easiest for them to gather: the links people click on from Google's site. If everyone who enters a particular search term clicks only on one particular link, then they should make it the first result; and so on.

    Not a perfect method, by any means, but it does look as if it'll bias the sort to show the pages that people actually want to see. Combined with their other ranking methods, maybe it would help to improve their ordering? Or has this been tried?

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  122. We, the users should fix this by pkhuong · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, so we link to wordpress.org by default. I just changed the link to wordpress.org.remove-me-they-google-bomb. I like the credit and helping others find good software, but I disapprove of the "fund raising" practice. Problem solved. I may put the correct link back once they stop the google bombing.

    To others who want to do the same, there are two links in the index.php file (one in the right side menu, and the other in the bottom timer section), and another one in wp-comments-popup.php (again, the bottom timer).

    --
    Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
    1. Re:We, the users should fix this by djupedal · · Score: 1

      there are two links in the

      Don't forget to cripple the firefox icon pull in the admin-footer - it goes right back to the wp site as well...and now we know why :)

  123. Not cool by centipetalforce · · Score: 1

    You would not be doing that for laughs if you had an Adwords account. Jackasses clicking on your legiitimate links are the threat to the entire model. Does it matter if your bilking a rich lawyer out of $40 or a poor retailer out of 35 cents? No, it's still unethical and wrong.

    1. Re:Not cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahahaha

  124. Uhm, no by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    It's a fine line, but there is a difference between SEO and search engine spamming.

    Writing Googlebot-friendly pages, minimizing Flash use, using proper titles and headers, etc are legitimate techniques for increasing your Google juice.

    Linkfarms, on the other hand, are not.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  125. Wordpress by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 1

    is a pile of smelly first time php coder garbage. Yes, it worked, but try doing something useful with it other than pushing elephant talk.

  126. Visual CAPTCHA is not Section 508 compliant by tepples · · Score: 1

    So use one of those things that tells you to type in the word in the box below, and it's all distorted with noise added to defeat character recognition algorithms

    And blind people.

    1. Re:Visual CAPTCHA is not Section 508 compliant by gumpish · · Score: 1

      I think there are probably enough sighted people to handle the job of reporting google-cheaters. Of course, I guess that would result in a disproportionate amount of junk results for searches relating to resources for the blind...

  127. About your sig... by goldfndr · · Score: 1
    Googlebombing by using sneaky techniques to promote your "403 Weapons of Mass Destruction Not Found" and "Miserable Failure"->"whitehouse.gov" pages was technically similar to SEO lying - but it was clever and amusing metacontent, and deserved its 15 minutes of fame, and watching the sleazy Republicans reply in kind was amusing too, but it's Been Done Now.
    --
    Bill Stewart
    Slashdot Scammers
    Maybe you should change your signature then?
    --
    Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    1. Re:About your sig... by billstewart · · Score: 1
      If you mean "That signature is old and boring and has used up its 15 minutes of fame", that's probably true, but I haven't had anything useful to replace it with lately ;-) I actually am somewhat frustrated with AA419's web page code, because it burns unnecessarily huge amounts of CPU. I ran it for a while anyway, but I've been downloading music from E-Tree with BitTorrent lately (legitimately downloadable jam-band music.)

      If you're trying to say something about Slashdot signatures being an unfair promotion method for the Artists Against 419 project, I disagree. It's not my project; it's something I actually found interesting. (Also, Slashdot signatures seem to be dynamically generated; I'm not sure if Google finds them or not, and if it does, I'm not sure if Google searches always find your most recent signature, or find the signature that was current at the time you posted an article, or don't re-scan pages so it's irrelevant - probably the latter.)

      If it causes too many links to point to Nigerian-Scammer-Bank.com, that's not a big deal; anybody who's looking for legitimate banks in Nigeria by using search engines has a hard problem ahead of them, and finding a small number of links from a popular site (if aa419.org manages to be popular) is less likely to help a bank's pagerank as much as pounding on their web server is likely to hurt them.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    2. Re:About your sig... by goldfndr · · Score: 1
      I meant that the link text has "Slashdot" in it, while the link target has nothing to do with Slashdot. Additionally, I was thinking of Slashdot as a noun or adjective, not a verb (i.e. someone who'd scammed Slashdot). "Slashdot the scammers!" would make it more obvious that you're using it as a verb. Still somewhat misnamed, though, since it has nothing to do with Slashdot.

      I have nothing against the site. I, too, have run the Lad Vampire on occasion. Haven't tried Spam Research tool or others much yet, though.

      --
      Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
    3. Re:About your sig... by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, I guess you could interpret it that way. Hmmm. I was running into the signature length limit because the Lad Vampire's URL was too long, but since that URL's no longer working, I could go edit it.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  128. Try the vermiculite by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

    I hear it has plenty of fiber.

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  129. Re:SEO... Yeh, like Kyoto Accords... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Just exchange the links like pollution credits... hheheh

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  130. April fool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just found out this is an April fool's joke!
    What's great is that everyone on ./ fell for it!

  131. Re:the problem with that solution-Palm guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy who invented the Palm PDA is working on making 'lifelike' computer AI. His approach, if successful enough, will make CAPTCHA tests useless to keep 'bots' from ultimately wasting server resources with a multitude of automatic form submissions.

  132. Legitimate Medical Info Searches get ruined by billstewart · · Score: 1
    I've recently been looking for information about some medications I've been taking, and whether they have side effects and whether they interact with each other. It's become really difficult to get decent information from search engines for several reasons, some legitimate and some annoying.
    • Many legitimate sites that have medical information have information for lots of drugs on the same page, so drug1 drug2 "side effects" will get you lots of pages like [Side effect of Drug3] [list of other drugs including drug1 and drug2], so the information you want gets lost in the legitimate noise. Some kind of editing could help (i.e. an actual legitimate SEO job if any of them wanted to bother.)
    • Many sites sell lots of medicines, and provide information about them, so the page that tells you about [Side effects of drug1] will also have lists of prices / ordering links for drug0...drug9999. Some of these pages are legitimate, some of them aren't.
    • Sites with legitimate drug information that have advertising for other sites that sell drugs. Besides SEO-spammish sites, this is especially common for the legitimate popular medical information sites, which have a business model of selling advertising. It's less of a problem when the ads are all images than when they're unobtrusive text-link ads (e.g. Google AdWords or similar non-annoying styles seem to poison the content more, which is ironic.) But even image ads can have URLs with the drug name or manufacturer name in them. This problem would obviously be much worse if I were looking for information on drugs that are widely sold on the web to (ahem) men of a certain age bracket (/ahem), but it turns out that there are a really wide variety of drugs that get lots of web advertising, including many of the new antihistamines.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  133. Same Thing Had Happen to PHPNUKE.ORG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is my first post about this issue:

    http://www.nukecops.com/postt42460.html
    http://www.nukecops.com/modules.php?name=News&file =article&sid=3827

    Fransisco Burzi had mailed me about this phenomenon. He said that he had been try contacting Google to resolve the situation.

  134. Uhm, yes by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1
    Writing Googlebot-friendly pages, minimizing Flash use, using proper titles and headers, etc are legitimate techniques for increasing your Google juice

    That's the job description of a "web site author".

    So what then does an "SEO" do? As far as I can tell, exactly what this /. article is about. Namely, spamming.

    So let's call a spade a spade please.

    1. Re:Uhm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clueless while we are calling a spade a spade I must say I think your name is appropriate. While some SEO's use techniques like this that doesnt mean all do. Not all people in the marketing business are the people who plague you with pop ups or spam in your inbox. SEO is often, in fact, an effort to raise a legit site above the spam ones in the rankings. If you have heard anything about 'black hat' SEO thats probably more the people you are talking about. While there is some overlap between SEO and web design SEO is more specific and usually focuses on things web designers wouldnt. Dont blackball an entire industry for the actions of a few.

  135. Re:If You Don't Want To Support WordPress After Th by wcbrown · · Score: 1

    I currently run a MovableType blog, a WordPress blog (two, actually: 1.2 and 1.5), and a TextPattern site. I've evalutated all of the options and TextPattern is the cleanest, best designed lightweight CMS of the bunch.

    http://www.textpattern.com/

  136. phpnuke by theseeria · · Score: 0

    PhpNuke has been completely banned from google's search.

  137. undeserved contempt - it's way better than spam by feepcreature · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I have nothing but amused contempt for people who do not value their own work enough to state a price. And I give them exactly what they ask for--nothing.
    So is ALL philanthropy deserving of your amused contempt? Or is it just when the kind people assume the existence of other generous people that they deserve your scorn?

    The donations model may not be all that effective in revenue terms (though it works for wikipedia), but it's certainly a good way of allowing those who can't afford the price to use the goods. And it's a much better way than making money by participating in undermining the search engines on which most of us depend for much of the usability of the web!

    It's not about guts, so much as priorities. You are able to live with yours - but your scorn for generosity seems a bit sad, somehow.

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
  138. Re:Fine, don't read the article! Here's the scoop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So let's review.

    1. Hot Nacho are search engine spammers
    2. Photomatt decided to take payoffs from them.
    3. Photomatt decided to abuse all the trusting users of Wordpress to support this little project.
    4. Photomatt pocketed the bribes and left all the users of Wordpress to deal with the fallout.

    I can't believe anyone is defending this scumbag.

  139. Re:Who owns the supposed startup spam co Hot Nacho by Hotnacho · · Score: 1

    Hi Amelia, I own Hotnacho.com and this whole story has been exaggerated beyond belief. For anyone interested, I've posted my side of the story on my website: http://hotnacho.com/wordpress-fracas/ Sorry, it's a bit lengthy Regards, Chad

  140. Re:Who owns the supposed startup spam co Hot Nacho by Amelia+G · · Score: 1

    Thanks for responding. Much appreciated.

    --
    chick-in-charge at Blue Blood
  141. Mesothelioma... by Feral+Bueller · · Score: 1

    ...killed Steve McQueen.

    --
    - learn to swim.