Slashdot Mirror
Google Blocks co.cc From Search Results
tekgoblin writes "Google has taken the attack on malware into its own hands today as it blocks the entire co.cc subdomain. The block removed about 11 million results from the Google search index which should dramatically clean up much malware in search results."
That wouldn't be cool.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
If you make an account and login to google it gives you the option of hiding domains but you have to visit them first for the hide option to show up. Someone also made a handy greasemonkey script if you want to go that route.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Problem is, it only allows you to blacklist 50 domains (or did, last time I used the feature).
I suppose suggesting google should block them is a bit harsh, but it'd be nice if they had a way to more appropriately rank them. The quality and accuracy and meaningfulness of the content deserves placement a few pages down; the only reason they have the top three or five results most of the time, is due to a more broad manipulation unrelated to the actual individual content. If the content was valuable (like wikipedia results), I'd have no problem with it rising to the top - even with a nudge by google as a judgement call.
By what criteria are you saying that Stack Overflow is the same tier as Yahoo answers, but eHow and ExpertSexchange are content farms?
Yahoo answers is borderline retarded. I've seen better quality questions and answers on 4chan.
.co.cc is not an officially recognized second level domain. It is just sub-domains given out by a Korean company that owns the domain http://co.cc/ So, Google is actually removing just one domain with 11 million sub-domains. (source http://digitizor.com/2011/07/06/google-removes-cc-domains/ )
Expert Sex Change is a pile of shit and ehow is a waste of space
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.
Actually, a few days ago there was another comment that said" First post!". Maybe just naming yours "First response" or "First comment" would help you not to confuse yourself with other people.
Actually, it looks like they've raised the limit to 500 domains. That's a lot more reasonable. There's more than 50 that I need to block for a better experience, but I probably couldn't come up with near 500 regular offenders.
Not large portions of the internet. Just a single spam domain name.
> some people say that it's better to allow a hundred guilty people go free than imprison one innocent person. I'm not sure if I agree with that
If one day you are the one innocent stuck with 100 guilty people maybe you will change your mind. If you want a second opinion on this, ask the mother of Freddy Krueger.
lucm, indeed.
> Yahoo Answers isn't a content farm. It's a legit place where users post general questions and other users answer
I love Yahoo Answer, especially when people take the time to reply "I don't know".
lucm, indeed.
Better to accuse 100 innocent people than let one guilty one go free!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
co.cc blocked by Google. Ouch.
http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2011/06/protecting-users-from-malware-hosted-on.html
I probably shouldn't respond to an AC, but here goes: If this were a few "rogue" sites then yes, your point would be valid. But when you are talking the VAST majority on a domain, something to the tune of over a half a million sites of malware and spam? Then any legitimate company would be wise to head for the hills and should probably thank Google if they didn't already know.
To complain this might actually hit an innocent is like saying the one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money is being discriminated against thanks to the spam filters. This isn't just some accidental hacking here, this bunch has been courting the malware and phishing groups similar to that colo that got shut down last year.
According to the full posting Google gave they and several others have complained repeatedly only to get ignored. If you are a slum lord repeatedly warned about all the crack dealing and you just go back to counting your money? Well don't be surprised or shocked when the buildings get damaged when the cops raid the place. It isn't like there isn't plenty of places offering cheap hosting, the big difference is this one didn't care how many complaints they got for bad behavior. Bad behavior can have consequences in the cyber world as well as the real, and they have reaped what they have sown.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Heck setup the safe search options so I can pick which TLDs are in/out of my search results. I'm pretty sure it would be fine to eliminate some TLDs completely and not miss much.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
one Nigerian prince who really does want to give someone money
Who is this Nigerian prince of which you speak? I wish to make his acquaintance.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
From el reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/google_cans_11m_dot_co_dot_cc_sites/):
.co.cc sites from its results
By Kevin Murphy
Posted in Hosting, 6th July 2011 09:30 GMT
Google dumps all 11+ million
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
The ORIGINAL FUCKING STORY IS ON THE REGISTER
For fuck's sake, stop this linking to every scumbag linkspamming plaigiarising blogger who submits his crappy blog to scam some ad hits.
Blocking sites from Google search results is about the same thing as shutting them down completely.
Judging by how well they block spam in GMail, Google should be able to do a pretty good job of blocking bad Web sites.
I wish they had started blocking malware sites long ago!
Send me $10K to show me you're serious. Then I'll get you his contact data.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Why is 100 the number? Why not 1000? or 10? How many guilty people must we accept go free to make sure that one innocent doesn't get punished?
If it is infinitely worse to punish one innocent, we should just close down the police and courts, as we can never be 100%, totally, without doubt certain of anybodies guilt.
If it is zero, we should start putting everybody in prison, to make sure we get everybody who is guilty.
I think we can agree that none of these scenarios are good societies, so we need to aim for something in between. But what level of doubt should be enough for not punishing a person? Until that question is answered, the phrase about a hundred guilty going free is just words that sounds nice.
Interesting that the article says that co.cc is being managed by a company in Korea. When CC is The Cocos Islands and Keeling Islands, a territory of Australia. (Christmas Island, CX is also an Australian territory.)
co.ck would be The Cook Islands, which is a semi-autonomous part of New Zealand.
Well yes, that phrase is just words that sounds nice. You could pick the numbers 10, 1000, or any other and it would work the same. The reason is because the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence. The doctrine itself doesn't aim for any particular ratio of imprisoned innocent to free guilty but the level of doubt required to punish someone has been clearly established as "beyond a reasonable doubt".
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
[...] the number isn't important. It's just an illustration of the legal doctrine of presumed innocence.
But the number IS important, it defines what level of presumption of innocence our judicial system has. This is a fundamental question, and yet is isn't defined anywhere. I would assume that different people found different levels of doubt reasonable, so not defining it just leads to arbitrary justice, depending on what the particular jury or judge finds reasonable.
The acceptable number is 0. What is the acceptable number of guilty people going free? Because for every innocent person imprisoned, a guilty person goes free. It is not possible to have one without the other.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.