Proposal: What if We Started Flagging Non-SPAM Threads (Posts)?
Roy Schestowitz
what if we did the reverse of SPAM flagging and preceded our subject lines by
something like [AISE]? Most spammers are hit-and-runners, so they won't get
the trick around it. Think of it as white flagging that helps separate ham
from spam.
Andrew Heenan
>> SPAM,
>> what if we did the reverse of SPAM flagging and preceded our subject
>> lines by
>> something like [AISE]?
>
> that
> offers spam filtering. I pay 10 euros per year to news.individual.net and
> most
> of the groups I read are almost spam-free. This one has maybe one or two
> spams
> per day that show up in my newsreader.
I like Roy's idea in principle, but I don't think it would work - for long -
for three reasons:
1. There'd be loads of double posts as idiots like me forgot to add the
'code'
2. While it would help with 'drive-by' spammers, it would actually help the
real scum - spammers within the community - who would use the 'code' as a
badge of legitimacy.
And most seriously:
3. It would be yet one more discouragement to new members who would feel
even more excluded.
GBB: is news.individual.net user friendly? is it a sensible layout?
10 Euros may be preferable to liberal use of the killfile!
--
Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.
The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
Andrew Heenan
> GBB: is news.individual.net user friendly? is it a sensible layout?
> 10 Euros may be preferable to liberal use of the killfile!
Wow!
This is the New Me, 10 Euros lighter - once I found I could do it via
Outlook Express (M$'s only good program!), there was no point hanging on.
I can't be doing with the web-based setups - too slow!
Jez
Andrew Heenan wrote:
> "Andrew Heenan" <and...@heenan.net> wrote
>> GBB: is news.individual.net user friendly? is it a sensible layout?
>> 10 Euros may be preferable to liberal use of the killfile!
>
> Wow!
>
> This is the New Me, 10 Euros lighter - once I found I could do it via
> Outlook Express (M$'s only good program!), there was no point hanging on.
>
> I can't be doing with the web-based setups - too slow!
Were you using a web based thing before then?
I have been using news.individual.net for nearly 3 years now and they
are well worth the money IMO - though from memory renewing was very
clunky last year.
> (M$'s only good program!)
It's not as good as Thunderbird!
Jez.
spammer
udp / filter / drop / score -9999
message-id: <containing> *googlegroups*
references: <containing> *googlegroups*
so easy, a caveman could do it.
Tonnie Lubbers
A caveman doesn't understand that there is more ...
--
Webdesign: http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/
Korte handleiding zoekmachine optimalisatie / gevonden worden:
http://vision2form.nl/webontwerp/gevonden-worden.html
Lifestyle - wonen reizen en genieten : http://vision4living.com
John Bokma
Score everybody you like to read up. That way you can at least recognize
the regulars. I've kill filed all GG users, with one rule, and use another
rule to put the few GG users I like to read back. That, and by using the
(already recommended) individual I see very little spam.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
Jezsta Web Productions
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:1373522.X...@schestowitz.com...
Thing is Roy, you said it 80% are clearly spam so why mark it? It is already
easy for me to weed out the good stuff from the bad. I don't have any
problem not knowing.
I know this would be easy for you for the stats, but like I mentioned in the
other thread the stats in full really lets us see the real thing of how this
group is. Not doing anything and letting it go without trying to at least
start decent discussions will keep it so. People need to step up and start
really trying to do some good discussions about search engines and
marketing. Until then this group will continue to drop unless it gets
moderated and that won't work either.
Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/
John Bokma
> thing of how this group is. Not doing anything and letting it go
> without trying to at least start decent discussions will keep it so.
Spam doesn't go away if we suddenly all start to post on-topic and
informative posts. Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up, more or
less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter it out,
despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not work*
Anyway, most people here into SEO, if they had a long post on SEO, they
probably would put it on their site. I would (but damn, posting silly
posts on Usenet is so much less effort).
Jezsta Web Productions
"John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A36BB0B6C...@130.133.1.4...
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> thing of how this group is. Not doing anything and letting it go
>> without trying to at least start decent discussions will keep it so.
>
> Spam doesn't go away if we suddenly all start to post on-topic and
> informative posts. Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up, more or
> less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter it out,
> despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not work*
I was meaning there should be more dicussions about on topic stuff which
there isn't.
> Anyway, most people here into SEO, if they had a long post on SEO, they
> probably would put it on their site. I would (but damn, posting silly
> posts on Usenet is so much less effort).
LOL! Yeah, I do both. I am not saying long posting but discussions on things
about SEO, marketing anything.
John Bokma
> I was meaning there should be more dicussions about on topic stuff
> which there isn't.
Since the stats are part of this group, discussing them is IMO on-topic.
But I also agree that it would be nice if there were more SEO related
posts. If you have suggestions to improve on that, I welcome them.
[ long articles on SEO might be better on your own site ;-) ]
> LOL! Yeah, I do both. I am not saying long posting but discussions on
> things about SEO, marketing anything.
Yup, like I said, I am currently experimenting with description for Yahoo.
Also my overal number of visitors is going up again by roughly 1000/day.
Did anyone else see quite a drop the past months?
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> I was meaning there should be more dicussions about on topic stuff
>> which there isn't.
>
> Since the stats are part of this group, discussing them is IMO on-topic.
> But I also agree that it would be nice if there were more SEO related
> posts. If you have suggestions to improve on that, I welcome them.
Oh, I didn't mean discussing about stats. I mean all in general. You know
the whole group discussing.
> [ long articles on SEO might be better on your own site ;-) ]
>> LOL! Yeah, I do both. I am not saying long posting but discussions on
>> things about SEO, marketing anything.
>
> Yup, like I said, I am currently experimenting with description for Yahoo.
> Also my overal number of visitors is going up again by roughly 1000/day.
> Did anyone else see quite a drop the past months?
From Yahoo? Or overall?
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
[..]
>> Yup, like I said, I am currently experimenting with description for
>> Yahoo. Also my overal number of visitors is going up again by roughly
>> 1000/day. Did anyone else see quite a drop the past months?
>
> From Yahoo? Or overall?
Overall (both the drop, and going up again). Might be school related :-)
In the past I mostly looked at the Google stats, and only very little.
Big Bill
Ya don't say :-)
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
T.J.
I know a lot of people don't like it,
but try looking at your traffic on Alexa
(over 3 years) then overlay it with mine.
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk
it's amazingly similar.
My drop is predominatly because I stopped
doing a couple of projects on my site which
were bringing in lots of traffic, but little income.
I now have half the traffic but twice the income :o)
maybe you shouldn't worry to much about
traffic, but look more at the quality of the traffic.
--
T.J.
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk
Andrew Heenan
> Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up, more or
> less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter it out,
> despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not work*
*everyone* has given up on reporting it - and the people you report it to
have largely given up, too.
Filtering is not 100%, but considering the huge volumes of spam, it really
isn't bad.
Certainly better than doing nothing!
Just consider: Google's gmail has probably the best email filters around; if
I get ONE spam per day in my inbox, I'm surprised, and very occasionally (I
assume when a new tick is developed), I get a handful per day for a week.
Often I get none at all.
Just consider: Google's Groups is the source of much usenet spam. I don't
use it at all for usenet, so I don't know if they have filters for incoming
spam ... but they sure as hell don't for outgoing.
Go figure!
Jezsta Web Productions
Do you have the same amount of pages indexed during the whole time? Without
knowing the whole scheme of things it would be hard to say. Depending on
which site of course there is a flux, and there is always a slow down right
after Christmas then it picks back up around Jan 15. This might be what you
have experienced.
John Bokma
[ on johnbokma.com ]
> I now have half the traffic but twice the income :o)
> maybe you shouldn't worry to much about
> traffic, but look more at the quality of the traffic.
That's a very good point. I think a lot about that one too, but then I
notice that thinking about those things eats up a lot of time, time I
could use to write more content :-). One (good) reason for the drop might
be that I haven't written much the past months (in December I picked it up
a bit, and that's probably why I see an increase now).
Anyway, I do want my traffic up, and then drop AdSense like a hot turd. It
did nice about a year ago, but I've the feeling the quality has dropped.
At least the income has dropped to less than 50%.
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote :
>> Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up, more or
>> less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter it out,
>> despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not work*
>
> *everyone* has given up on reporting it
Not everyone, but close. Which is sad.
> - and the people you report it to have largely given up, too.
I am afraid that those started first, doing nothing. I still report other
forms of spam, and they (the people who *should* do something about it)
make it extremely hard.
> Filtering is not 100%, but considering the huge volumes of spam, it
> really isn't bad.
> Certainly better than doing nothing!
Filtering is just that: doing nothing.
> Just consider: Google's Groups is the source of much usenet spam. I
> don't use it at all for usenet, so I don't know if they have filters
> for incoming spam ... but they sure as hell don't for outgoing.
Google does delete spam, but that's after it has been distributed and
someone complained about it. They don't care much about spam on
blogger/blogspot (their abuse reporting system is fucked, to say it
nicely, and it took me ages to contact finally someone who was able to do
something). If I didn't know better I would almost say Google profits in
some mysterious way from spam.
John Bokma
[ on johnbokma.com ]
> Do you have the same amount of pages indexed during the whole time?
I've made some changes and added some pages. No big ones, but overall I
didn't do more or less than normal, as far as I can recall.
> Without knowing the whole scheme of things it would be hard to say.
> Depending on which site of course there is a flux, and there is always
> a slow down right after Christmas then it picks back up around Jan 15.
> This might be what you have experienced.
It started well before Christmas. I can't recall ever to have a
significant drop (as in noticable) like this before.
Jezsta Web Productions
Oh, well how about the pages indexed? Links inbound etc. These can be
factors in traffic dropping. Google has started treating some links
differently and like I said in the other thread, Yahoo really doesn't
consider links to much for top rankings.
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
[ on johnbokma.com ]
>> It started well before Christmas. I can't recall ever to have a
>> significant drop (as in noticable) like this before.
>
> Oh, well how about the pages indexed? Links inbound etc.
I doubt that there have been any negative changes in those (pages indexed
went up, no doubt about it, ditto for ibls).
> These can be
> factors in traffic dropping. Google has started treating some links
> differently and like I said in the other thread, Yahoo really doesn't
> consider links to much for top rankings.
Only think I did: I added the addthis stuff (gives a bunch of icons to
bookmark, digg, flurl, etc the current page) on *every page*. After a few
months I noticed that the icons had been clicked on very little (maybe 40
times?). So I decided to remove it (somewhere in December?).
Visitors:
Jan 2008 13072
Dec 2007 12546
Nov 2007 16249 [1]
Oct 2007 14446
Sep 2007 14084
Aug 2007 13557
Jul 2007 14470
Jun 2007 14697
May 2007 15229
Apr 2007 15072
Mar 2007 14321
[1] Someone posted a link to my scorpion giving birth on Digg, which
caused 2 days a shit load of (mostly worthless IMO) traffic:
7 15721 3.22%
8 44588 9.15%
9 38007 7.80%
10 16204 3.32%
Jezsta Web Productions
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>
> [ on johnbokma.com ]
>
>>> It started well before Christmas. I can't recall ever to have a
>>> significant drop (as in noticable) like this before.
>>
>> Oh, well how about the pages indexed? Links inbound etc.
>
> I doubt that there have been any negative changes in those (pages indexed
> went up, no doubt about it, ditto for ibls).
Ok, just asking.:-)
>
>> These can be
>> factors in traffic dropping. Google has started treating some links
>> differently and like I said in the other thread, Yahoo really doesn't
>> consider links to much for top rankings.
>
> Only think I did: I added the addthis stuff (gives a bunch of icons to
> bookmark, digg, flurl, etc the current page) on *every page*. After a few
> months I noticed that the icons had been clicked on very little (maybe 40
> times?). So I decided to remove it (somewhere in December?).
Well that change might have been the thing that changed your rankings cause
of a major navigation change. It can happen someitmes.
> Visitors:
>
> Jan 2008 13072
> Dec 2007 12546
> Nov 2007 16249 [1]
> Oct 2007 14446
> Sep 2007 14084
> Aug 2007 13557
> Jul 2007 14470
> Jun 2007 14697
> May 2007 15229
> Apr 2007 15072
> Mar 2007 14321
>
>
> [1] Someone posted a link to my scorpion giving birth on Digg, which
> caused 2 days a shit load of (mostly worthless IMO) traffic:
>
> 7 15721 3.22%
> 8 44588 9.15%
> 9 38007 7.80%
> 10 16204 3.32%
Phew yeah that can happen.
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
[ on http://johnbokma.com/ ]
> Well that change might have been the thing that changed your rankings
> cause of a major navigation change. It can happen someitmes.
Yup, I am afraid that addthis.com adds an extremely small benefit at a
gigantic cost.
>> [1] Someone posted a link to my scorpion giving birth on Digg, which
>> caused 2 days a shit load of (mostly worthless IMO) traffic:
>>
>> 7 15721 3.22%
>> 8 44588 9.15%
>> 9 38007 7.80%
>> 10 16204 3.32%
>
> Phew yeah that can happen.
Yup. In the past I would have been bouncing up and down and be happy with
this, but based on my experience, digg traffic is worthless. Moreover,
there is always someone who copies (!) your photos to his/her site, and
posts a link to it in the comments. Oh, of course they do this because the
original site is slow...
OTOH, I got some ibls from other sites I take more serious, but I don't
need digg for that (IMO).
Big Bill
Scorpion birthing, huh? You get the impression that over at Digg, many
people don't have lives.
Big Bill
>"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>
>[ on http://johnbokma.com/ ]
>
>> Well that change might have been the thing that changed your rankings
>> cause of a major navigation change. It can happen someitmes.
>
>Yup, I am afraid that addthis.com adds an extremely small benefit at a
>gigantic cost.
>
>>> [1] Someone posted a link to my scorpion giving birth on Digg, which
>>> caused 2 days a shit load of (mostly worthless IMO) traffic:
>>>
>>> 7 15721 3.22%
>>> 8 44588 9.15%
>>> 9 38007 7.80%
>>> 10 16204 3.32%
>>
>> Phew yeah that can happen.
>
>Yup. In the past I would have been bouncing up and down and be happy with
>this, but based on my experience, digg traffic is worthless.
Tourists. Mass-hysterical based.
Still Not The Goblin That's Gobbling
>OTOH, I got some ibls from other sites I take more serious, but I don't
>need digg for that (IMO).
Do you like frogs as well John ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7219803.stm
May interest you.
--
"Religion is based upon blind faith supported by no evidence. Science is based upon confidence that results from evidence -
and that confidence can be modified and/or reversed by further observations and experimentation.
Science approaches truth, closer and closer, by hard dedicated work. Religion already has it all decided, and it's "in the book.
It's dogma, unchangeable, and unaffected by reality and whatever facts we come upon in the real world." -- James Randi
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Bokma
> Scorpion birthing, huh? You get the impression that over at Digg, many
> people don't have lives.
Heh :-)
John Bokma
> On 1 Feb 2008 17:07:52 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>OTOH, I got some ibls from other sites I take more serious, but I don't
>>need digg for that (IMO).
>
> Do you like frogs as well John ?
I like nature, and if I would make a top 25, I am sure frogs would be on
them :-)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7219803.stm
> May interest you.
Yes, it does, thanks!
Bears do shit in the woods
>Still Not The Goblin That's Gobbling <no...@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Feb 2008 17:07:52 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>OTOH, I got some ibls from other sites I take more serious, but I don't
>>>need digg for that (IMO).
>>
>> Do you like frogs as well John ?
>
>I like nature,
me too :)
>and if I would make a top 25, I am sure frogs would be on
>them :-)
and toads. I miss my childhood days of collecting snakes, lizards,
frog and toads.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7219803.stm
>> May interest you.
>
>Yes, it does, thanks!
No problem. I had a feeling you were into frogs too.
plh
Paul
Roy Schestowitz
>
>
> Andrew Heenan wrote:
>> "Andrew Heenan" <and...@heenan.net> wrote
>>> GBB: is news.individual.net user friendly? is it a sensible layout?
>>> 10 Euros may be preferable to liberal use of the killfile!
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>> This is the New Me, 10 Euros lighter - once I found I could do it via
>> Outlook Express (M$'s only good program!), there was no point hanging on.
>>
>> I can't be doing with the web-based setups - too slow!
>
> Were you using a web based thing before then?
>
> I have been using news.individual.net for nearly 3 years now and they
> are well worth the money IMO - though from memory renewing was very
> clunky last year.
>
>> (M$'s only good program!)
>
> It's not as good as Thunderbird!
>
> Jez.
Personally, I colour all GG posts (originating from Google that is) blue so I
can usually ignore them, especially when they are OPs. That's where the abuse
typically comes from.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Computers are useless. They only solve problems"
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 25.8%us, 4.1%sy, 1.0%ni, 65.2%id, 3.4%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Roy Schestowitz
> spammer schreef:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> Here is a thought. Since like 80% of the threads here are most clearly
>>> SPAM, what if we did the reverse of SPAM flagging and preceded our subject
>>> lines by something like [AISE]? Most spammers are hit-and-runners, so they
>>> won't get the trick around it. Think of it as white flagging that helps
>>> separate ham
>>>from spam.
>>
>> udp / filter / drop / score -9999
>>
>> message-id: <containing> *googlegroups*
>> references: <containing> *googlegroups*
>>
>>
>> so easy, a caveman could do it.
>
> A caveman doesn't understand that there is more ...
Yes, grey-flagging/listing is better, but it still leaves burden and clutter.
Roy Schestowitz
> "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>> thing of how this group is. Not doing anything and letting it go
>> without trying to at least start decent discussions will keep it so.
>
> Spam doesn't go away if we suddenly all start to post on-topic and
> informative posts. Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up, more or
> less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter it out,
> despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not work*
Yes, at least someone tried to eradicate the issue. Thanks, John.
> Anyway, most people here into SEO, if they had a long post on SEO, they
> probably would put it on their site. I would (but damn, posting silly
> posts on Usenet is so much less effort).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 111111 X 111111 = 12345654321
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
15:20:01 up 9 days, 1:14, 3 users, load average: 0.42, 1.00, 1.31
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
John Bokma
> ____/ John Bokma on Friday 01 February 2008 00:23 : \____
>
>> "Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-e...@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>> thing of how this group is. Not doing anything and letting it go
>>> without trying to at least start decent discussions will keep it so.
>>
>> Spam doesn't go away if we suddenly all start to post on-topic and
>> informative posts. Spam goes away by reporting it. I've given up,
>> more or less on that. The plan for spam seems still to be to filter
>> it out, despite years and years of proof that filtering *does not
>> work*
>
> Yes, at least someone tried to eradicate the issue. Thanks, John.
You're welcome Roy ;-) I still report spam I get via my blog, and some I
get via email Currently Geocities is abused a lot, and I report the
spamvertized URLs. After some time spammers give up, if they notice that
those sites (which redirect to the real ones), are deleted after a short
time. But still, it's a major pain in the ass to contact ISPs, and some
just say: hey, just put a CAPTCHA on your site, are you a programmer or
what!?
Roy Schestowitz
Have you gotten that linux.com problem sorted out at the end?
--
~~ Best of wishes
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
08:20:01 up 12 days, 18:14, 4 users, load average: 0.54, 1.03, 1.31
John Bokma
> Have you gotten that linux.com problem sorted out at the end?
Heh, yeah, when I posted a comment on a new article explaining (again) the
issue, it was fixed within a short time. Either that, or the several
emails to them finally arrived.
Paul
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, at least someone tried to eradicate the issue. Thanks, John.
John wasn't the only one ;)
Roy Schestowitz
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:25:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, at least someone tried to eradicate the issue. Thanks, John.
>
> John wasn't the only one ;)
Did he write about it here?
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Avoid missing ball for higher score"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 444760k used, 70740k free, 852k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Paul
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>____/ Paul on Wednesday 06 February 2008 20:47 : \____
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:25:00 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, at least someone tried to eradicate the issue. Thanks, John.
>>
>> John wasn't the only one ;)
>
>Did he write about it here?
I was on about reporting spam, Roy :)
I haven't seen anything from John lately. So, I guess not.
plh
Paul