Ponders concerning rel="nofollow"
KimmoA
Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I
find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled
URLs, I guess it's good.
Big Bill
Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
quality sites in your genre.
BB
--
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/genesis/dolphin-spirit.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/genesis/double-dolphins.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/genesis/humpback-reflection.html
KimmoA
> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
> quality sites in your genre.
Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop
spam in comments etc.
tonnie
> On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What search engines, other than Google, support it?
>>
>> Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I
>> find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled
>> URLs, I guess it's good.
>
> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
> quality sites in your genre.
The only propper way to use it is when the website linking to is merely
used as an example but not trusted enough or a plain spammer.
--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html
Big Bill
Are links from your site spam? Which answers your question.
KimmoA
> >> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
> >> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
> >> quality sites in your genre.
> >
> >Ask Google, who invented rel="nofollow" (AFAIK). It is intended to stop
> >spam in comments etc.
>
> Are links from your site spam? Which answers your question.
What?
John Bokma
And in such a failure. A lot of blogs have it on by default while the
owner has no clue what it is, and what it's doing. I try to avoid
commenting on blogs that have it on. I mean, they want my free input and
give nothing in return.
--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:
KimmoA
> A lot of blogs have it on by default while the
> owner has no clue what it is, and what it's doing. I try to avoid
> commenting on blogs that have it on. I mean, they want my free input and
> give nothing in return.
Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it for
their userpages, for example. It sucks!
John Bokma
Didn't know that, but I can imagine in this case /a good reason/ for
doing so. But blogspam? A spammer isn't going to check each blog if they
use it or not. I wonder even if they in general care.
Paul
>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
>> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>
>Didn't know that,
Not 100% true.
Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
Has been mentioned in this group a long while back.
> but I can imagine in this case /a good reason/ for doing so. But blogspam? A spammer isn't going to check each blog if they
>use it or not. I wonder even if they in general care.
plh
Paul
--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovski/crystal-earrings-310.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/earrings-107.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/gemstone/bracelet-106.html
----== 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 =----
KimmoA
> >> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
> >> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
> >
> >Didn't know that,
>
> Not 100% true.
> Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
Main wiki? Do you mean article pages? I only said "userpages", meaning
pages in the User: namespace.
John Bokma
> On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
>>> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>>
>>Didn't know that,
>
> Not 100% true.
Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)
> Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah. You feel unmotivated to post at such places. Wikipedia has it
>>>> for their userpages, for example. It sucks!
>>>
>>>Didn't know that,
>>
>> Not 100% true.
>
>Yes, 100% true, I didn't know that :-)
I was referring to Wikipedia, rather than userpages. As I do not use
wiki [but have links from them] I was unaware of a "userpage"
>> Doesn't do it on the main wiki. The others, yes.
>
>Like KimmoA said
I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
> : User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
>nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
>a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
mea culpa.
Was unaware of userpages.
I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated. But what I read ages
ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
to do. But I know what I read.
KimmoA
> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does have
> nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user page has
> a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
So it's bad when something is easy for once? I mean... it's not like
every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
KimmoA
> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
Nobody cares about your broken box. And Wikipedia is not the same as
"wiki", you moron.
PS: I know that you still read this, so stop acting.
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>Like KimmoA said
>
> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-) But anyway, he had a point this
time.
> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
In what way?
> But what I read ages
> ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true (wiki is a concept like search engine,
and wikipedia is the google amongst the wikis so to speak :-). Wikipedia
decided to rule against the use of nofollow on normal pages, which is
excellent, otherwise people would have been quite pissed off. At least the
ones that understand the damage nofollow is doing to normal users versus
the spammers.
> If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
> to do. But I know what I read.
Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid
things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own
products.
Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
>> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
>> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
>
> So it's bad when something is easy for once?
No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
(afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
no problem with nofollow on those.
I do object against software that turns it on by default. I have talked to
several webmasters, and they are not even aware of the issue. Yet they
want people to comment to their precious blogs, adding free content. Maybe
the good thing for them is that most commenters are not aware of the whole
thing either.
To me a comment on a blog is someone helping your site. nofollow is trying
to get a free ride. Moreover, it doesn't help against spam. There are
thousands and thousands of blogs and guestbooks wide open. They are easy
to find, and spammed senseless (guess).
> I mean... it's not like
> every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
> to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>>Like KimmoA said
>>
>> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
>
>Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-)
Beautiful things to have. :)
>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>
>In what way?
Its well over hyped. Wiki this, wiki that. Same way bloody blogs went.
And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself. Both have their
faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it
must be true. :/
>> But what I read ages
>> ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
>
>main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true
Which is why I said "not 100% true"
I don't care for it much.
Yes, nice layout, fairly clean looking. But its not for me, even
though I have links from it. [And traffic].
So, I am not aware of userwhateveritis etc.
I just remember that one wiki didn't use it, and the rest did. No big
deal.
[...]
>> If I was that bothered, I would hunt it down, but I have other things
>> to do. But I know what I read.
>
>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
>wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
>is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
>added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
>the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
>other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
Yep, won't be long before there are more wiki's than there are blogs
<G>
>Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up stupid
>things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in their own
>products.
Too true. Like getting their search engine sorted.
>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
>Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
>landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
Typical :/
KimmoA
> >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
> >> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
> >> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
> >
> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
>
> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
> (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
> escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
> no problem with nofollow on those.
Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
> > I mean... it's not like
> > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
> > to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
>
> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
> on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
> and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned URLs = perfect
solution.
KimmoA
> >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page does
> >> have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so. My user
> >> page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
> >
> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
>
> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
> (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
> escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I have
> no problem with nofollow on those.
Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
> > I mean... it's not like
> > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on Wikipedia
> > to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it and do so. :)
>
> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating users
> on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD to create,
> and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that price..
Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts + banned domains = solution.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> >> Like KimmoA said: User:foobar pages. I checked, and my User page
>> >> does have nofollow. And I think it's sound that Wikipedia does so.
>> >> My user page has a PR of 4, so that would be easy gain.
>> >
>> > So it's bad when something is easy for once?
>>
>> No, I mean, user pages are not reviewed afaik, and are non-editable
>> (afaik) by others. In short, you can get your own Wikipedia page that
>> escapes review procedures that others have (again afaik). And yes, I
>> have no problem with nofollow on those.
>
> Actually, anyone can edit anyone's userpage at Wikipedia.
Thanks, didn't know that.
>
>> > I mean... it's not like
>> > every Web site in the world will have their own user page on
>> > Wikipedia to get a PR 9 inbound link... but we would know about it
>> > and do so. :)
>>
>> Yes, and before you know it there is a distrubuted bot net creating
>> users on wikipedia at an amazing rate, because it costs 500-1000 USD
>> to create, and the links can be sold probably at a tenfold of that
>> price..
>
> Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts
Piece of cake to automate that.
> + banned URLs = perfect
> solution.
Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?
Oopsie...
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2006 01:05:45 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Like KimmoA said
>>>
>>> I don't see his posts any more unless someone replies to them.
>>
>>Yup, the wonders of the kill file :-)
>
> Beautiful things to have. :)
I have been able to keep mine mostly empty for 12 years or so :-)
>>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>>
>>In what way?
>
> Its well over hyped.
But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?
> Wiki this, wiki that.
I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
the search works way better IMO.
> Same way bloody blogs went.
> And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
you mean Google :-)
> Both have their
> faults. But - just like the rest of the net - if it is in wiki, it
> must be true. :/
Even before the wiki that was the case. And before that, if it was in
the encyclopedia it must be true. There are still biology books, I am
afraid, that explains that the tongue can be devided in sections
dedicated to one of the four basic tastes. Which is funny because a
century or so ago a fifth taste was discovered :-D. So in short each
information source has the probability to be wrong. Wikipedia at least
gives you the oppurtunity to fix it.
>>> But what I read ages
>>> ago, the main wiki does not use rel, whereas the others do.
>>
>>main wiki as in Wikipedia, yup true
>
> Which is why I said "not 100% true"
> I don't care for it much.
> Yes, nice layout, fairly clean looking. But its not for me, even
> though I have links from it. [And traffic].
> So, I am not aware of userwhateveritis etc.
> I just remember that one wiki didn't use it, and the rest did. No big
> deal.
There are probably many more, like I said: WikiMedia the software that
some wikis use, turns it on by default. At least the version(s) I am
using.
>>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including
>>many wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam.
>>The point is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's
>>silently added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to
>>nofollow, at least the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and
>>probably plenty of other software. Clueless developers, clueless
>>users.
>
> Yep, won't be long before there are more wiki's than there are blogs
> <G>
A lot of OS projects are using Wikis. The main advantage is that if one
notices a minor bug, one can update the wiki instead of trying to
contact the developer, etc. Disadvantage is that one does have to create
a login for a lot of wikis :-(.
>>Maybe Google should first focus on their own shit before making up
>>stupid things that hardly work. There is plenty of work for them in
>>their own products.
>
> Too true. Like getting their search engine sorted.
>
>>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
>>Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
>>landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
>
> Typical :/
Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
spammers that they will get into trouble?
KimmoA
> > Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts
>
> Piece of cake to automate that.
Don't interupt me in the middle of a sentence...
> > + banned URLs = perfect
> > solution.
>
> Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
> What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?
>
> Oopsie...
Thanks for quoting the bad post. "URLs" should say "domains".
And no, it's not hard to keep track of.
John Bokma wrote:
> >>Garbage like ringtone - nokias. blogspot.com (spaces added), hosted by
> >>Google, still are allowed to use JavaScript redirects. But hey, the
> >>landing page has AdSense, so who cares?
> >
> > Typical :/
>
> Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
> one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
> scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
> Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
> spammers that they will get into trouble?
"nokias.blogspot.com"? What's that? Doesn't seem to exist...
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't care much for wiki anyway. Overrated.
>>>
>>>In what way?
>>
>> Its well over hyped.
>
>But does that make the wiki in itself overrated?
It's over-rated and over-hyped.
>> Wiki this, wiki that.
>
>I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
>bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
>the search works way better IMO.
That's you. I am me.
>> Same way bloody blogs went.
>> And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
>
>You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
>you mean Google :-)
Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like
them. Don't want nothing to do with them.
[...]
>Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
>one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
>scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
>Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
>spammers that they will get into trouble?
I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.
plh
Paul
--
Handmade Jewelry
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovski/crystal-bracelet-101.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-304.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/bracelet-203.html
Roy Schestowitz
> Big Bill schreef:
>> On 9 Sep 2006 11:55:50 -0700, "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What search engines, other than Google, support it?
Google has become a search engines monolith and monopolist, which extends
towards a becoming part of the American (and global) oligopoly. Just like
XML sitemaps, this was 'invented' by Google (unilaterally) and supported by
Google. I think the W3 consortium should have gotten involved.
>>> Also, will implementing it on my own sites benefit me in any way? I
>>> find it to be evil, but if it gives more weight to the non-crippled
>>> URLs, I guess it's good.
It introduces links hierarchy and classes, which is unwanted complexity, IMH.
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/05/01/google-rel-nofollow/
Also of relevance:
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/09/21/comment-spam/
>> Why would you want to be linking to sites if you don't want the
>> engines or people to follow them? You can gain authority by linking to
>> quality sites in your genre.
Valid point.
> The only propper way to use it is when the website linking to is merely
> used as an example but not trusted enough or a plain spammer.
Aye. But I think that more CMS's should have an expiration rule that strips
off the rel"nofollow" after some predefined period of time. Still,
rel="nofollow" is no answer to curious human surfers. That's where
additional issues lie and it is also the reason why comment spam is on the
rise, despite the emergence of sophisticated anti-spam mechanism -- those
that make commenting and reviewing an utterly miserable and repellent
experience.
I can recall the day when rel="nofollow" was introduced. Some overly
optimistic developers thought it was the death knell to SPAM while I took a
stance.
http://schestowitz.com/IMG/no-nofollow-button.png
rel="nofollow" never offered a solution. It was a bad idea from the get-go.
It killed participation in Web sites (no link, no incentive), made
everything more complex, and urges spammers to use greater brute force.
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2005/04/23/blogs-recession/
In a sense, Google killed participation in blogs (not deliberately). I
predicted this in the item above (when rel="nofollow" was a new feature) and
even Om Malik linked to that item to express consent.
http://gigaom.com/2005/04/25/business-week-blogs-and-business/
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate (Medical Biophysics)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 336944k used, 699240k free, 78136k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
David
>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
>wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
>is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
>added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
>the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
>other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
Easy to remove the nofollow from WordPress. Find the file
comment-functions.php In the folder /wp-includes/
Look for this (after line 350)
$return = "<a href='$url' rel='nofollow'>$author</a>";
And change to-
$return = "<a href='$url'>$author</a>";
The Authors comment links will no longer have nofollow.
I'm testing it out on http://www.morearnings.com/ see if I get an
increase in comment SPAM, think I will, but will be manual and not
much.
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/09/10/wordpress-comments-and-rel-nofollow/
I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
manually. Just have to find the time.
Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
that.
David
--
WordPress Themes with AdSense ads
http://www.morearnings.com/category/wordpress-themes/
AdSense Tips http://www.morearnings.com/2006/05/08/adsense-revenue/
Roy Schestowitz
> On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including many
>>wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam. The point
>>is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's silently
>>added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to nofollow, at least
>>the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and probably plenty of
>>other software. Clueless developers, clueless users.
>
> Easy to remove the nofollow from WordPress. Find the file
> comment-functions.php In the folder /wp-includes/
>
> Look for this (after line 350)
>
> $return = "<a href='$url' rel='nofollow'>$author</a>";
>
> And change to-
>
> $return = "<a href='$url'>$author</a>";
>
> The Authors comment links will no longer have nofollow.
>
> I'm testing it out on http://www.morearnings.com/ see if I get an
> increase in comment SPAM, think I will, but will be manual and not
> much.
>
> http://www.morearnings.com/2006/09/10/wordpress-comments-and-rel-nofollow/
>
> I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
> default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
> manually. Just have to find the time.
>
> Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
> that.
David, that plugin has existed since WP 1.5.0 was introduced. I hope you no
longer comment spam.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Have you hugged your penguin today?
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/8 Sun Sep 10 09:49 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
David
<newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>__/ [ David ] on Sunday 10 September 2006 15:49 \__
>
>> I've been meaning to add a remove nofollow option to my blogs, so by
>> default they are nofollowed, but after review remove the nofollow
>> manually. Just have to find the time.
>>
>> Would make a good WordPress plugin, though I lack the skills to do
>> that.
>
>David, that plugin has existed since WP 1.5.0 was introduced.
Are you saying there's a plugin to remove the nofollow on selected
posts? I didn't look (yet).
>I hope you no
>longer comment spam.
No need to hope Roy, I gave that up before charging for SEO services
years ago, so not done that since 2003 (spammed for about 9 months I
think). Got an important domain of mine adultlingerieuk.com banned
from Google for my troubles :-)
Haven't you read what I think about comment spamming?
Been a while since it's come up here (usually was with arguments with
Sam!), but my position is don't comment spam because you are likely to
get your site banned in Google.
http://www.morearnings.com/2006/05/31/comment-spam-phentermine-xanax-and-blackjack/
If you find any comment spams to my sites that are under 2 years old
you can thank Sam for those, the little shit took it upon himself to
comment spam a bunch of my sites to try to hurt them (he started early
2004, possibly earlier I forget)!
>Best wishes,
>
>Roy
David
--
SEO Tutorial http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
More Earnings Blog http://www.morearnings.com/
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> > Hello? E-mail validation for user accounts
>>
>> Piece of cake to automate that.
>
> Don't interupt me in the middle of a sentence...
>
>> > + banned URLs = perfect
>> > solution.
>>
>> Who is going to check all user pages and update that list?
>> What if someone spams your site on everybody's user page?
>>
>> Oopsie...
>
> Thanks for quoting the bad post. "URLs" should say "domains".
>
> And no, it's not hard to keep track of.
Yes it is. There are several issues with this approach.
>> Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
>> one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
>> scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
>> Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
>> spammers that they will get into trouble?
>
> "nokias.blogspot.com"? What's that? Doesn't seem to exist...
You forgot to put stuff in front (ringtone-).
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 04:49:24 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
[..]
> It's over-rated and over-hyped.
Ok, a personal opinion.
>>> Wiki this, wiki that.
>>
>>I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
>>bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
>>the search works way better IMO.
>
> That's you. I am me.
Yup, like overrated/hyped is you :-).
>>> Same way bloody blogs went.
>>> And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
>>
>>You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
>>you mean Google :-)
>
> Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like
> them. Don't want nothing to do with them.
Same here. I have one, but only because we have no landline (I in general
don't like phones :-) ). I had the same with PDAs. But OTOH I know that
once one starts to use something, the opinion might be changed. It's not
good to call something overrated and overhyped just because you see it pop
up often. I mean, people call Google overhyped and overrated. A lot who do
rank poor or very poor in Google :-)
> [...]
>
>>Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
>>one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
>>scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
>>Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
>>spammers that they will get into trouble?
>
> I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.
Fear?
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 02:00:23 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Yup, and you're right, there are plenty of sites out there, including
>>many wikis that supports Google's idiotic idea on how to tackle spam.
>>The point is most people are not aware of the whole thing because it's
>>silently added to plenty of software. MediaWiki *defaults* to
>>nofollow, at least the install I have at home. So does WordPress, and
>>probably plenty of other software. Clueless developers, clueless
>>users.
>
> Easy to remove the nofollow from WordPress.
The problem is that I have had contact with several users who had no idea
what nofollow was :-). The issue is that it's default on. When I explained
it to people, they turned it off :-)
I would strongly recommend to WordPress et al to turn it default off, and
keep comments moderated default on (which it is IIRC). I am not going to
contact them by myself, because I have bumped enough into walls of
ignorance and ego for a while.
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 04:49:24 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
[..]
>> It's over-rated and over-hyped.
>Ok, a personal opinion.
Yep. Apparently, we are still allowed them.
rel="personalopinionfollow" <G>
>>>> Wiki this, wiki that.
>>>I have one on my computer. I consider it way more convenient compared to
>>>bookmarks. Now I can group bookmarks *and* add comments to them. Also
>>>the search works way better IMO.
>>
>> That's you. I am me.
>
>Yup, like overrated/hyped is you :-).
Meeeeeeeeoooow LOL
>>>> Same way bloody blogs went.
>>>> And all the offshoots. I prefer Britannica myself.
>>>You again mix up Wikipedia and wiki. It's like calling SE's shit while
>>>you mean Google :-)
>>
>> Only cos I am not familar with it. Just like mobile phones. Don't like
>> them. Don't want nothing to do with them.
>
>Same here. I have one, but only because we have no landline (I in general
>don't like phones :-) ). I had the same with PDAs. But OTOH I know that
>once one starts to use something, the opinion might be changed. It's not
>good to call something overrated and overhyped just because you see it pop
>up often. I mean, people call Google overhyped and overrated. A lot who do
>rank poor or very poor in Google :-)
Why the need for all these wiki's ? Cannot just one do ? And have it
in different languages.
Sorry, but it will become too much and the world will flooded with
wikisomethingorother.
>> [...]
>>>Yeah, said in a way. I think I reported that site 4-5 times, but still
>>>one can create blogspot blogs and use JavaScript redirect. Google could
>>>scan for such abuse with a simple piece of code. Is it happening? No.
>>>Why not, I wonder... Could Google be afraid that if it pisses of enough
>>>spammers that they will get into trouble?
>>
>> I am somewhat puzzled as to why they do so little over this.
>
>Fear?
I doubt it. Not with their money and lawyers.
plh
Paul
--
American Indian Jewelry
http://www.firstpeople.us/native-american-art-for-sale/American-Indian-Artwork.html
Paul
>The problem is that I have had contact with several users who had no idea
>what nofollow was :-). The issue is that it's default on. When I explained
>it to people, they turned it off :-)
Why not make it a blog so the world will know and then you can just
point your users to it. Saves explaining it time and time again.
plh
Paul
--
American Indian Jewelry
http://www.firstpeople.us/native-american-art-for-sale/American-Indian-Artwork.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
John Bokma
> Why the need for all these wiki's ? Cannot just one do ? And have it
> in different languages.
Paul, you keep mixing up wiki and Wikipedia I guess. A wiki is a concept.
Wikipedia uses WikiMedia (software). Anyone can use WikiMedia, and create
a wiki. No need to turn it into an online encyclopedia. Esme and I use it
to store notes, and our bookmarks. I don't want to store them in the
Wikipedia :-)
> Sorry, but it will become too much and the world will flooded with
> wikisomethingorother.
You now probably talk about people who use the content of Wikipedia on
their own site, or mirror Wikipedia. Yes, that sucks often. They forget
the important rule: easy content is easy for everybody.
>>Fear?
>
> I doubt it. Not with their money and lawyers.
I am afraid I am somewhat right: entire countries go easy on spammers IMO.
And what's Google going to do when a spam gang outside the USA starts to
take them serious?
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 16:08:09 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem is that I have had contact with several users who had no
>>idea what nofollow was :-). The issue is that it's default on. When I
>>explained it to people, they turned it off :-)
>
> Why not make it a blog so the world will know and then you can just
> point your users to it. Saves explaining it time and time again.
It's on my todo list. The thing is, if I put my todo list online, 10 items
a page, I get more traffic then I can handle :-)
KimmoA
pure evil. I will not be using them and probably rant against them in
the future.
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz: I'm convinced. rel="nofollow" is, just as I expected,
> pure evil. I will not be using them and probably rant against them in
> the future.
Please do. Spread the word!
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why the need for all these wiki's ? Cannot just one do ? And have it
>> in different languages.
>
>Paul, you keep mixing up wiki and Wikipedia I guess.
I guess.
Afterall, lots of long words are abbreviated. Easy mistake to make.
>A wiki is a concept. Wikipedia uses WikiMedia (software). Anyone can use WikiMedia, and create
>a wiki. No need to turn it into an online encyclopedia. Esme and I use it
>to store notes, and our bookmarks. I don't want to store them in the
>Wikipedia :-)
>
>> Sorry, but it will become too much and the world will flooded with
>> wikisomethingorother.
>
>You now probably talk about people who use the content of Wikipedia on
>their own site, or mirror Wikipedia. Yes, that sucks often.
Yep.
Won't be long before someone starts a package where you have a blog
and wiki installed on default :/
>They forget the important rule: easy content is easy for everybody.
>
>>>Fear?
>>
>> I doubt it. Not with their money and lawyers.
>
>I am afraid I am somewhat right: entire countries go easy on spammers IMO.
>And what's Google going to do when a spam gang outside the USA starts to
>take them serious?
Lets hope you're wrong.
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 16:37:15 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why the need for all these wiki's ? Cannot just one do ? And have it
>>> in different languages.
>>
>>Paul, you keep mixing up wiki and Wikipedia I guess.
>
> I guess.
> Afterall, lots of long words are abbreviated. Easy mistake to make.
Yup very true. wiki in itself is already short for wiki wiki :-)
>>You now probably talk about people who use the content of Wikipedia on
>>their own site, or mirror Wikipedia. Yes, that sucks often.
>
> Yep.
> Won't be long before someone starts a package where you have a blog
> and wiki installed on default :/
LOL, with CPanel one can install a blog and a wiki AFAIK with 2 mouse
clicks and entering some values. So we're already getting close.
>>I am afraid I am somewhat right: entire countries go easy on spammers
>>IMO. And what's Google going to do when a spam gang outside the USA
>>starts to take them serious?
>
> Lets hope you're wrong.
Aye. I saw bluefrog being ddosed of the net. And that was IIRC just one
angry spammer.
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 16:37:15 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>Paul, you keep mixing up wiki and Wikipedia I guess.
>>
>> I guess.
>> Afterall, lots of long words are abbreviated. Easy mistake to make.
>
>Yup very true. wiki in itself is already short for wiki wiki :-)
<shakes head>
>>>You now probably talk about people who use the content of Wikipedia on
>>>their own site, or mirror Wikipedia. Yes, that sucks often.
>>
>> Yep.
>> Won't be long before someone starts a package where you have a blog
>> and wiki installed on default :/
>
>LOL, with CPanel one can install a blog and a wiki AFAIK with 2 mouse
>clicks and entering some values. So we're already getting close.
I'm not on a Linux server :p
>>>I am afraid I am somewhat right: entire countries go easy on spammers
>>>IMO. And what's Google going to do when a spam gang outside the USA
>>>starts to take them serious?
>>
>> Lets hope you're wrong.
>
>Aye. I saw bluefrog being ddosed of the net. And that was IIRC just one
>angry spammer.
Who, no doubt has the FBI etc onto him :)
--
John Bokma
Thanks Roy, will read it later (bookmarked it now). I have plans for
ages to write down my pov, and when I do, I will link to your article as
well :-)
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 20:06:58 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
[..]
>>LOL, with CPanel one can install a blog and a wiki AFAIK with 2 mouse
>>clicks and entering some values. So we're already getting close.
>
> I'm not on a Linux server :p
Oh, don't worry, I run WikiMedia, WordPress, and even phpBB on XP :-D.
>>Aye. I saw bluefrog being ddosed of the net. And that was IIRC just one
>>angry spammer.
>
> Who, no doubt has the FBI etc onto him :)
I have no idea if the FBI can do anything in Russia :-) Moreover, if the
FBI had that much power, why do I still get every day that shit? The USA
is in the top 3 of spam sending countries IIRC.
Paul
>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2006 20:06:58 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>LOL, with CPanel one can install a blog and a wiki AFAIK with 2 mouse
>>>clicks and entering some values. So we're already getting close.
>>
>> I'm not on a Linux server :p
>
>Oh, don't worry, I run WikiMedia, WordPress, and even phpBB on XP :-D.
You hand your bloody Wiki <G>
>>>Aye. I saw bluefrog being ddosed of the net. And that was IIRC just one
>>>angry spammer.
>>
>> Who, no doubt has the FBI etc onto him :)
>
>I have no idea if the FBI can do anything in Russia :-) Moreover, if the
>FBI had that much power, why do I still get every day that shit? The USA
>is in the top 3 of spam sending countries IIRC.
Depends on the offence. If they hack a USA server, then they will.
plh
Paul
John Bokma
> On 10 Sep 2006 22:47:09 GMT, John Bokma <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul <lamewolf2004[REMOVE]@yahoo.com> wrote:
[..]
>>Oh, don't worry, I run WikiMedia, WordPress, and even phpBB on XP :-D.
>
> You hand your bloody Wiki <G>
:-D. Like I said, it's a better place to store links. I now and then also
copy paste stuff I read on Usenet into it. Disadvantage is that it takes
some time to organize and categorize links. Advantage is that when someone
asks for links, I can often give a handful in one go (after some editing).
>>>>Aye. I saw bluefrog being ddosed of the net. And that was IIRC just
>>>>one angry spammer.
>>>
>>> Who, no doubt has the FBI etc onto him :)
>>
>>I have no idea if the FBI can do anything in Russia :-) Moreover, if
>>the FBI had that much power, why do I still get every day that shit?
>>The USA is in the top 3 of spam sending countries IIRC.
>
> Depends on the offence. If they hack a USA server, then they will.
Afaik: bluefrog closed down their service (bothering spammers). People are
now working on a distributed open source solution:
My most optimistic view is that we will see nothing coming out of the
project for the next 10 months :-)
Phil Payne
> their userpages, for example. It sucks!
Personally, I'm glad they do. Someone scraped a Wiki article to build
a few thousand spam domains, and the article contained a hyperlink to
my site. All of a sudden I had around 2,000 extra inbound links from
spam sites.
KimmoA
John Bokma
Google seems to divide the Internet into good and bad neighborhoods. Links
coming from bad ones seem to have a negative impact. This however
disagrees a statement on their site (IIRC), that you can't affect ranking
of someone else's site in a negative way.
KimmoA
> Google seems to divide the Internet into good and bad neighborhoods. Links
> coming from bad ones seem to have a negative impact. This however
> disagrees a statement on their site (IIRC), that you can't affect ranking
> of someone else's site in a negative way.
I know that they claim this, but to be honest, I find it very hard to
believe.
John Bokma
Like I said: it is a contradiction: you can't negatively affect a site you
don't own, yet there are bad neigborhoods.
Jezsta Web Productions
news:Xns983B88035E...@130.133.1.4...
> "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Google seems to divide the Internet into good and bad neighborhoods.
>>> Links coming from bad ones seem to have a negative impact. This
>>> however disagrees a statement on their site (IIRC), that you can't
>>> affect ranking of someone else's site in a negative way.
>>
>> I know that they claim this, but to be honest, I find it very hard to
>> believe.
>
> Like I said: it is a contradiction: you can't negatively affect a site you
> don't own, yet there are bad neigborhoods.
Well, that is really not what Google states. They say "almost nothing a
competitor can do"
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34449
Meaning that yes, they can be something someone can do to harm your site.:-)
Stacey
--
Halloween Stuff - All Halloween all the time!
http://www.halloween-stuff.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns983B88035E...@130.133.1.4...
>> "KimmoA" <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>> Google seems to divide the Internet into good and bad
>>>> neighborhoods. Links coming from bad ones seem to have a negative
>>>> impact. This however disagrees a statement on their site (IIRC),
>>>> that you can't affect ranking of someone else's site in a negative
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> I know that they claim this, but to be honest, I find it very hard
>>> to believe.
>>
>> Like I said: it is a contradiction: you can't negatively affect a
>> site you don't own, yet there are bad neigborhoods.
>
> Well, that is really not what Google states. They say "almost nothing
> a competitor can do"
> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34449
>
> Meaning that yes, they can be something someone can do to harm your
> site.:-)
Putting 2,000 links in a bad neighborhood doesn't sound to me like "almost
nothing" though.
I mean:
0) buy a black hat
1) create a bad neighborhood
2) sell links
3) ????
4) profit!