Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

192 comments

This just in (4, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051390)

Animals shit in ~95% of their habitat...

Re:This just in (5, Funny)

Smegly (1607157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051640)

a staggering 95% of User Generated Content is... ...spam. Here is the report's front door; to read the actual report you'll have to give up name, rank, and serial number.

Give up your Name, rank, email... so we can enlighten you with valuable information from our partners.

Re:This just in (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051844)

You would probably know, smegma breath.

Anyway,

You are young yetbut the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.
[1845 E. A. Poe in Graham's Mag. Nov. 194]

Re:This just in (2, Interesting)

KGIII (973947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051856)

Anonymity comes into play I suspect. I'm not a psychologist though. It makes me wonder if there will be any attempt (or anyone with the compute power and gumption is more accurate I suppose) to fact check Wikipedia. I'm rather curious as to how that will turn out if it is done in a non-biased and total in situ way. I imagine it would take a great deal of work and then there are people who will lay claim as to it being constantly changed but the point that I'm considering is what is the accuracy level at a particular moment in time. I'm not interested in how accurate it may be in the future, just the now.

I don't actually hold any opinion on its accuracy and I refer to it for my own needs quite frequently. I'm mostly curious as it is one of the largest sites with user generated content and it holds an authoritative position in some circles.

Re:This just in (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051886)

I agree. But imagine what a difficult task that would be. According to Wiki itself, it contains 14 million articles. You would have to find experts in each of the fields to check each article, which are supposedly the people who wrote them in the first place. Hopefully, anyway.

Re:This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052124)

It gets fact checked everyday by the swarm.

Want to get ripped? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051392)

I got ripped in 2 weeks. learn how with secret juice formula.

Re:Want to get ripped? (3, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051434)

Speaking of juice, there's nothing better than a cold glass of Fanta [fanta.com] !

Re:Want to get ripped? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051482)

Don't Cha Wanna Wanna?

Re:Want to get ripped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051750)

I've heard it refreshes like no other. [youtube.com]

Re:Want to get ripped? (1)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051920)

Fanta went downhill after real juice was introduced. If I wanted juice in my soda, I'd get Sunkist.

Re:Want to get ripped? (3, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052078)

If I wanted juice in my soda, I'd steal it from Mark McGwire.

And after you get ripped ... (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051438)

buy this deluxe duct tape developed by nasa scientists to put yourself back together again. Just three easy installments of $99.99.

Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (5, Funny)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051394)

That is so untrue. There is value in what I write.

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051428)

I concur.

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051572)

I fucked your dead great grandmother while drinking a refreshing Pepsi cola.

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051682)

While I was fucking you!

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051720)

Pepsi! Pepsi! Pepsi!

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051888)

Practically
Every
Penny
Supports
Israel

is a conspiracy theory on the origins of the name.
The internet was designed to propagate stuff like this.

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (2, Interesting)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052144)

Pepsi supports Israeli fascism while depleting your precious bodily fluids. And Snapple kills Afro-Americans seven different ways. http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/snapple.asp [snopes.com]

Re:Let me be the first to post that this is BS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052164)

I really want

Lets
U
Feel
The
Hostesses
And
Nobody
Says
Anything

to be true!

(submit word probable could it be true?)

This is slashdot (4, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051412)

We know.

Re:This is slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052042)

We know.

I just clicked on your homepage link. You ain't kiddin' , Junior!

Re:This is slashdot (3, Insightful)

Dilligent (1616247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052242)

+5 Insightful, not Funny, nope.. insightful, only on slashdot could such a thing happen. Part of the reason i love it as much as i do, oh and while you're here: I'm a prince from the far lands of absurdistan and would like to ask if you would like to [insert random passage of text here]

It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051416)

95% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious.

The fact is that there are millions of old blogs, unused forums, ancient guestbooks, etc that are easy to spam automatically. While it might very well be true that 95% of comments on the internet are spam of some sort, they're probably read by a tiny fraction of internet users. People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.

Car analogy: 95% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051454)

95% of humans are over 100 years old. Most of them are dead.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051494)

You really think the 5% of population that has been alive in the last 100 years counts for that much population in history? Even considering the increase in population we could only go back to like -1000-2000. I'm sure there have been people before that.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051538)

It seems that at least as well as anyone can estimate, the current population really is [wikipedia.org] about 5% of the total humans who've ever lived.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051552)

There were, but not many. Nowhere near the scads of people roaming the planet today. I've read that there have been several times in known history where there were fewer than a couple hundred thousand people; it's plausible that the past 100 years has had more people alive than all of human history, considering the multiple near-extinction events which have supposedly occurred.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052178)

Your boiled frog is truly dead now.
Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051694)

do the math, man...

Current population is insanely large.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Informative)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052018)

Depending on what you assume about paleolithic populations about 15%-25% of all the humans who ever lived are alive today. That means that roughly one our of every five people who ever walked the Earth have the potential to post to slashdot.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0, Flamebait)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052246)

Could we employ them (possibly zombies) as moderators? Surely they couldn't do a worse job (OTOH, monkeys randomly punching yes/no buttons, on average, might be better).

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051502)

That should be on Fox News.

"Number of dead people reaches all time high!"

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051546)

Well, then MSNBC would just rip into Fox for inferring these unfortunate individuals should no longer vote. CNN would chime in and blame the lack of universal health care for the deaths.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051778)

Well, then MSNBC would just rip into Fox for inferring these unfortunate individuals should no longer vote.

ACORN would make sure they all get registered to vote in Illinois and Massachusetts.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052012)

That should be on Fox News.

"Number of dead people reaches all time high!"

The report would be "Number of dead voters in Chicago (or registered by Acorn) reaches all time high"

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051626)

But their atoms live on.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051668)

Oh god, are they okay?

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Interesting)

Asadullah Ahmad (1608869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051470)

I don't assume they included Wikipedia in the "user generated" category, otherwise that much non-bogus content would have definitely tipped the scale a bit.

In my personal experience however, even without wikipedia, I have not come across that much bogus stuff on forums and random comments.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051790)

Are you implying that Wikipedia is not bogus content?

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Interesting)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051506)

More likely they are generalizing the activity they are seeing on their fake/honey pot sites on the internet as a whole.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (5, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051542)

A lot of forum software works well, until it gets "behind the curve", and then the site maintainer pulls the site*.

By "behind the curve" I mean any of the following can/does happen:
1) Forum software gets out of date and user fails to upgrade due to modifications or similar, resulting in spam.
2) Forum software gets popular without having a good security model and/or update cycle, resulting in exploits.
3) Gets inundated with comment approvals and the forum (or blog) gets ignored or set to auto-allow out of frustration.

* By "pulls the site" I mean "abandons it but doesn't take it down". That's typically the end result.

It's a lot of work to maintain your own forum and/or blog: managing spam can and will take hours+ from your day if you've not got a good automated and/or textual way to deal with it: web interfaces are clumsy.

Car analogy: 95% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.

Yet, unlike most of those cars, the actual blog content is not necessarily useless. I have seen quite a few abandoned blogs and/or forums which have 3-10 year old information on them which is by no means useless; it's just getting buried.

Digital archeologists of the future will probably have to figure out an automated way to prune back the spam to find the actual Internet, the way things are going.

Consider: if spam accounts for 95% of all user-generated content, and said user-generated content is actually a non-trivial percentage of all actual content online (believable), consider how much bandwidth gets wasted by these spammers. (Thankfully, I suspect most of the 'user generated content spam' doesn't show up on the first couple search page results so it's not going to likely be perused with regularity - unless it's more heavily seeded on topics common folks search.)

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (4, Interesting)

Kugrian (886993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051568)

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051706)

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051882)

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (2, Informative)

dosius (230542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051822)

Sturgeon's Law comes into play, as always. 90% of everything is crud

-uso.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051858)

People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.

And when they want a change from that, they come here.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051880)

You mean like CNN, Slashdot , Wired etc. filled of biased articles, advertisement, false information and countless comments spitting out useless opinions by clueless millions of users.

It's called the internet.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052162)

Or, 95% of American cars built in the nineteen seventies were of poor quality, therefore all American cars will always be junk.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052188)

Irrelevent [ir'-rel-e-vent] - Adjective:
        The wasteful use or application of a cooling device when not strictly necessary.

        USAGE: "Larry left the air conditioning unit on all throughout winter; its power consumption was irrelevent."
        ORIGIN: Teh Intarwebz.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052264)

Irrelevent [ir'-rel-e-vent] - Adjective:

        The wasteful use or application of a cooling device when not strictly necessary.

        USAGE: "Larry left the air conditioning unit on all throughout winter; its power consumption was irrelevent."

        ORIGIN: Teh Intarwebz.

Uh. Wrong.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=irrelevant
(adj) irrelevant (having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue) "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrelevant
      1. not related, not applicable, unimportant, not connected

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrelevant
not pertinent to the subject under consideration

You must have hit within the 95% when you searched for that definition.

Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent. (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052302)

whoosh!

Here's a hint: Read the parent's subject line again, this time without the spell-checker.

        -dZ.

Nothing to see here. Move along. (Bad summary) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051420)

BS in the summary. TFA says:

"95% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious."

The user generated content is valid, it's just the "comments" sections which are getting hit by spambots. If this is front page news, then the fact that 95% of email is spam is news as well. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Nothing to see here. Move along. (Bad summary) (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051462)

And in addition, the report itself doesn't even explain the result. It's a bullet point at the beginning of the report, but there's no explanation or analysis.

So many floating ads in the first link (1, Offtopic)

Sowelu (713889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051426)

I don't think I've seen so many floating ads in a theoretically-legitimate site before. When I opened it, it grayed out the window and popped up trying to get me to fill out something...scrolling around, the mouse runs into these little green underlined words that pops up an ad thing you have to click to close...and after about twenty seconds, another floating window scrolled down the screen and parked in the middle.

That's a little too much cruft for me. They can keep their content, I don't want it.

Re:So many floating ads in the first link (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051536)

"Print version" (less cruft): http://www.daniweb.com/forums/printthread258407.html

Adblock Plus seems to get rid of most of the cruft on the initial page, by the way.

Re:So many floating ads in the first link (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051574)

It's just proving its own point.

Re:So many floating ads in the first link (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051902)

For me in konqueror, the site rendered in text that was overwritten in a few seconds by a pure black page with a couple of itsy white boxes with green text which then morphed into a pure featureless white page with no scrollbars. Does that count as "bogus and/or spam?"

Isn't it obvious? (0, Troll)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051458)

I reached the same conclusion reading slashdot.

71% of statistics are useless (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051468)

71% of statistics are useless ...

Re:71% of statistics are useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052184)

62% of users believe the previous statement.

Was going to RTFA but it's probably bogus (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051472)

...95% probability actually. So I didn't bother.

Slashdot to coomaria: stop submitting crap (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051474)

Don't bother trying to RTFA, this story was posted as a way of telling coomaria [slashdot.org] to stop submitting crap because the crap he/she/it submits represents 95% of all the crap submissions on Slashdot. Seriously, just check out the number of rejected submissions by coomaria.

CAN'T FIND PENIS ENLARGEMENT ANYMORE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051486)

They are right ! There is so much rubbish on /. nowadays, I can not even find penis enlargement comments anymore :-(

Re:CAN'T FIND PENIS ENLARGEMENT ANYMORE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051532)

It's ok. For those who couldn't afford them back then, there will always be the internet archive [archive.org] .

just a cheap shot (4, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051496)

I guess that goes in hand with 95% of kdawson's submissions being crap and not worth the time.

just another cheap shot (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052200)

You missed your assessment by ~5%.

      -dZ.

40 000 000 sites per hour? (2, Interesting)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051504)

Every single hour the Internet HoneyGrid scans some 40 million websites for malicious code as well as 10 million emails for unwanted content and malicious code.

So 40 million sites per hour is 960 million sites per day. While wikipedia says that there over 25 billion pages [wikipedia.org] but can that number be accurate?

The message... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051516)

The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people. Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it. It's safer that way, and you'll like it.

Well, I don't care if 99% of user-generated content it is crap; people need to be free to create it, because some individual in the other 1% may just come up with the cure for cancer, and despite whatever it does to Big Pharma's profits, everyone needs to be able to hear about it.

Re:The message... (3, Interesting)

Yaur (1069446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051612)

the subtext is, the internet is dangerous so you need to buy their product.

Re:The message... (2, Informative)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052142)

The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people. Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it. It's safer that way, and you'll like it.

You're reading too much into it, and you are also misled by the misquote in the ,/ title. The article said "95% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious", probably meaning postings in forums, "comments" and stuff like that. They're not saying plain web pages by *authors* who aren't faceless corporation drones are crap.

Old news (1)

sictransitgloriacfa (1739280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051518)

In related news, approximately 90% of the cells in the human body are bacteria. Fortunately for us, the human body has an effective immune system. When are computers going to get one?

In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS. And we all know where they caught it.

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051528)

4chan?

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051892)

You don't want to know what they do there.

Obligatory (2, Funny)

jlintern (1169449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051594)

In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS. And we all know where they caught it.

Your mom?

Bogus huh? See you in court. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051564)

You can't write that the United Kingdom.

can be adequately explained by stupidity (2, Insightful)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051566)

"95% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam"

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

So I read "95% of User Generated Content is stupid" I agree,  count me in.

ANY -single- number HAS to be MISLEADING... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051588)

I can think of several areas, whose web sites seem - almost always - to be "spot on" technically, informationally & operationally.

How can this "95%" statistic have any meaning or usefullness?

We must ask: "Can you break that down?" (eg, by topic, field, application area, etc.)

There's way too much data out there on the question,
for a single number to be at all useful, except - possibly
- by commercial sites, who might try to convince us
that [only] their sites have non-bogus content... :-./

(Now, I'll see if there are any break-downs of this statistic,
eg, by reading the cited report... :-)

90% of everything is crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051606)

...no wait, make that 95%.

So Sturgeon was right (5, Interesting)

Aussie (10167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051624)

"Ninety percent of everything is crud."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law [wikipedia.org]

Re:So Sturgeon was right (4, Funny)

Faylone (880739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051798)

Sturgeon just had low standards.

Re:So Sturgeon was right (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051976)

And don't forget the important corollary (trivial to prove): 111.1111% of crud is everything.

So, if you spew more crud than your share, you'll get everything you want! At least, it seems to work that way for a lot of political figures.

Calling spam email UGC is... disingenuous. (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051628)

I would say that 95% of email is commercial in nature, and not "user generated content". To me "UGC" is something that people who are actually active users (consumers as well as creators) of a service generate... not something injected into the service from outside by predators.

And of the rest... (2, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051634)

Out of the 5% that are not generated by spambots, 99% is still generated by idiots.

Not so staggering... (3, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051652)

... a staggering 95% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam.

Considering 95% of internet users are malicious (see GIFT [penny-arcade.com] ), it's hardly staggering that 95% of user generated content is malicious too. :p

95% bogus? (0)

el_jake (22335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051688)

Just like the posts on /. ?

There, (0)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051690)

yet another reason to hate mankind.

You all suck.

Ugh.

Having read some blogs... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051812)

95% is intentionally bad, the other 5% is just shit

Domain hijacking (1)

horza (87255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051826)

If you use an ISP that hijacks unregistered domains, such as Virgin, to land you on their search page then that statistic goes up to 99.99%

Phillip.

Kill Bill Gates Song (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051830)

Apropos of nothing.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8720416

Spam, perhaps, but not necessarily bogus.

HAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051840)

95% of KDawson generated content is Bullshit

Fags are draining our resources (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051854)

If you blame the current weakness of the economy on a failure of our healthcare system you have no choice but to hold the fags as partially at fault.

The fags are disease ridden creatures who's lifestyle only incurs more disease with no potential gains for society.

Will you join me in a movement to rid our nation of fags for the betterment of man kind? They are the root cause of failure in our society. This can not be left to stand.

Well there are a lot of sites within sites (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051932)

As I discovered wit on of my sites a few years ago, someone had installed a site within mine and in investigating it I discovered there are plenty other siets with teh same issue, many even on Source Forge.

My advice is to do an inventory of the files on your site, to see if you to have such a problem.

But internet is growing!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051942)

Almost all sites are spam (of the kind that steals old urls) or redirectors to malware places.
Remember next time when some fool announces proudly that internet just reached a bazillion of pages.

Replace "UGC" with "Usenet" (4, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31051970)

We've seen this before, with Usenet, BBS's, MUD's, and Email. The advertisers, and the trolls, find it easy to spew their material across many thousands of targets, and get enough money or gratification from doing so that it funds their efforts. It doesn't even have to make money: they just have to believe that it _can_ make money, and the professionals will simply continue.

Whatever would make anyone think that "User Generated Content" forums would be any different?

Re:Replace "UGC" with "Usenet" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052160)

BBS's? Realy? I don't remember a single instance of "spam" on any BBS during the golden years. Perhaps that's because individual systems were far easier to control and moderate.

USENET fell because it was never designed with any real moderation or control in mind. Which was great as long as the users played nicely together. But after the Eternal September and the coming of gold diggers like Cantor & Siegel, the whole system fell apart.

If you want the flood of garbage to stop, you need someone standing at the door with a baseball bat. The days of the internet "playing nicely together" ended back in 1995.

Riiight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052240)

Sorry. That's like going to a municipal dump, pointing at the fields of waste and declaring that 95% of what Americans eat is plastic. The problem with this statement is that it includes this garbage in "user generated content".

This may be true, but... (1)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052280)

that 95% of spam and bogus content is generated by a small fraction of the people that uses internet. Not everybody is a spammer, and not everybody forwards every chain email they receive. Fot instance, 95% of the spam in my inbox comes from Russian/Chinese addresses. I do not think a large percentage of the Russian or Chinese population are engaged in spamming. The other 5% comes from family and friends forwarding things. It is mostly content that recirculates, as usually none of it is generated by the sender. So while 95% of what is there may be bogus, my guess is that a small percentage of the people who uses internet generates that.

Obligatory Simpsons (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31052282)

"Statistics can be made to prove anything Kent, 16% of all people know that" - Homer Simpson.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...