95% of User-Generated Content Is Bogus
coomaria writes "The HoneyGrid scans 40 million Web sites and 10 million emails, so it was bound to find something interesting. Among the things it found was that a staggering 95% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam." Here is the report's front door; to read the actual report you'll have to give up name, rank, and serial number.
I got ripped in 2 weeks. learn how with secret juice formula.
That is so untrue. There is value in what I write.
The fact is that there are millions of old blogs, unused forums, ancient guestbooks, etc that are easy to spam automatically. While it might very well be true that 95% of comments on the internet are spam of some sort, they're probably read by a tiny fraction of internet users. People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.
Car analogy: 95% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
...95% probability actually. So I didn't bother.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"Ninety percent of everything is crud."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law
a staggering 95% of User Generated Content is... ...spam. Here is the report's front door; to read the actual report you'll have to give up name, rank, and serial number.
Give up your Name, rank, email... so we can enlighten you with valuable information from our partners.
Sorry to hijack this, but http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Assets/WSL_ReportQ3Q4FNL.PDF seems to be the direct link to the paper.
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times