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!

'Online Poker' Googlebomb

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the good-or-evil dept.

Google 379

Philipp Lenssen writes "The blogger community is fighting back, though in ways not everyone may like: they are Googlebombing the Wikipedia page on online poker for the phrase "online poker" to make it rank higher in search engines. "Online poker", along with "Viagra", "mortgage" and "debt", are keywords heavily represented in comment spam, which itself aims to boost the Google ranking for a particular site and phrase. The Wikipedia page is currently third in Google."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You submitted this... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939079)

But you didn't even go to the trouble of linking the term online poker [] to Wikipedia in your submission? Slashdot has some healthy pagerank, too, ya know.

Re:You submitted this... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939101)

Slashdot has some healthy pagerank, too, ya know.

i thought pagerank was just for relevant sites.

Re:You submitted this... (2, Insightful)

shadowkin (863961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939103)

I think that's more of a 'trying to not get involved' act than anything else.

Re:You submitted this... (1, Insightful)

dirvish (574948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939108)

Just having the page in the same paragraph where online poker is mentioned will help a little.

Re:You submitted this... (5, Funny)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939111)

I couldn't in all fairness let you get away with that without the opportunity to help out my fellow brothers by slashdotting these guys [] .

Re:You submitted this... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939276)

... to help out my fellow brothers by slashdotting these guys. []


Well, this is /.. I should not complain, I know better, I should accept.


Re:You submitted this... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939112)

Sure they did.. see the online poker [] part?!!? :)

Re:You submitted this... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939126)

From the Wikipedia online poker [] page:
Online poker is the game of poker played over the Internet (online). It has been responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of poker players world wide, and as of December 2003, revenues from online poker were estimated at US$34 million per month.
Contents [showhide]
1 History
2 Legality
3 References
4 Most Popular Online Poker Cardrooms (external links)
5 External Links (oops! Missed these out somehow!)


Traditional (or "bricks and mortar", B&M) venues for playing poker, such as casinos and poker rooms, are intimidating for novice players and are located in geographically disparate locations. Brick and mortar casinos are also reticent to promote poker because it is very difficult for them to profit from the activity. Though the rake, or time charge, of traditional casinos is often very high, the economic costs of running a poker room are also very high. Brick and mortar casinos often make much more money by removing poker rooms and adding more slot machines.

Online venues, by contrast, are dramatically cheaper due to the online venue having much cheaper maintenance costs. For example, adding another table does not take up valuable space like it would for a brick and mortar casino. Online poker rooms tend to be viewed as more player-friendly. For example, the software may prompt the player when it is his or her turn to act. Online poker rooms also allow the players to play for very low stakes, attracting beginners.

Online venues may be more vulnerable to certain types of fraud, especially collusion between players. However, they also have collusion detection abilities that do not exist in brick and mortar casinos. For example, online poker room security employees can look at the "hand history" of the cards previously played by any player on the site, making patterns of behavior easier to detect than in a casino where colluding players can simply fold their hands without anyone ever knowing the strength of their holding.

The major online poker sites offer varying features to entice new players. One common feature is to offer tournaments by which the winners gain entry to real-life poker tournaments. It was through one such tournament that Chris Moneymaker won his entry to the 2003 World Series of Poker. He went on to win the main event causing shock in the poker world. The 2004 World Series featured triple the number of players over the 2003 turnout. Like Moneymaker, 2004 winner Greg "Fossilman" Raymer also won his entry at the Poker Stars online cardroom.

In December 2003 it was reported that online poker revenues stood at around $34m per month and were growing by 27% per month. At peak times over 40,000 people are playing for real money at the various cardrooms with a like number playing free games.


Online poker is legal and regulated in many countries including the United Kingdom and several nations in and around the Caribbean Sea.

The United States Federal Appeals Courts has ruled that while the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission across state lines of information for sports betting, there is no law prohibiting gambling of any other kind [1] (

However, some states have specific laws against online gambling of any kind. Also, owning an online gaming operation without proper licensing would be illegal, and no states are currently granting online poker licenses.

The government of the island nation of Antigua, which licenses Internet gambling entities, made a complaint to the World Trade Organisation about the U.S. government's actions to impede online gaming. The Caribbean country has won a preliminary ruling but the U.S. is expected to appeal.

In April 2004 Google and Yahoo!, the internet's two largest search engines, announced that they were removing online gambling advertising from their sites, including poker. The move followed a United States Department of Justice announcement that (in a contraction of the Appeals Court ruling) it intended to apply legislation from the Wire Act relating to telephone betting to the Internet in order to crack down on online gambling advertising. It says gambling is open to fraud. Critics of the Justice Department's move say that it has no legal basis for pressuring companies to remove advertisements and that the advertisements are protected by the First Amendment.


* Article about growth in online poker ( 119&CategoryName=News&SubCategoryName=Featured)
* BBC article about a player who plays for a living online (
* North Dakota bill to regulate online poker in the State ( m-info/agenda/bs041304.html)
* Poker on the Internet by Andrew Kinsman. ISBN 1904468063.

Re:You submitted this... (3, Interesting)

Worminater (600129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939161)

i'm not sure i follow their logic here... lower the page ranking of the sites that should be higher because they are oft linked to from spam; by google bombing and artificially raising the wiki; which devalues googles results?

I would think bloggers would like google:p

Re:You submitted this... (5, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939197)

They are fighting against the sites that are linked to by spam and thus fighting the spammers while supporting wikipedia.

I am sure the bloggers love google and hate seeing spam have large amounts of influence on the results.

Re:You submitted this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939343)

Can you help find a stick of 512mb PC133 laptop RAM for around $50-60? There is a reward ;)
  1. Go to [] .
  2. In the search box, type in "pc133 512mb".
  3. You're welcome.

Re:You submitted this... (4, Interesting)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939205)

I'm not clear why fighting spam-fuelled results is detrimental to google. Personally, I think the encyclopedia page is at least as valuable as whatever online poker service spammed the most.

Re:You submitted this... (3, Insightful)

Worminater (600129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939278)

If someone searches for online poker; they probably want to play online poker, which is what the wiki page is displacing. BUT the fact that its only 1 page that leaves 9 others on top, as the article said; would just cause the one spammer who is knocked off the front page to spam that much more; which will cause the other spammers to spam more to keep on the front page.... It just seems pointless:p Someone is laughing here

ICE CUBES ROOL! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939081)

enough said


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939283)


blogger revenge (3, Funny)

dirvish (574948) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939085)

Yeah, messing with bloggers might not have been the best idea...

Re:blogger revenge (1)

periol (767926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939095)

I sure wish I had learned that lesson in high school.

Re:blogger revenge (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939169)

why? are nerds beating you up now?

We'll see who gets the last laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939258)

It might cost the bloggers more in the longrun since Google and other pageranking search engines might lower the bloggers rank relevance values.

Re:blogger revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939371)

who messed with who? why are they having a hissy fit? does any of this make sense to anyone, or are the bloggers realizing that their life is no more interesting than the next guys and they feel they got to make war to sound cool?

I don't understand (5, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939094)

Do they think that if they make the Wiki ONLINE POKER page #1 that nobody will go to the other 9 online poker page results returned by Google on the same page?

It don' make no sense!

I'm feeling lucky (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939104)

It goes to #1.

Re:I'm feeling lucky (2, Interesting)

VoidWraith (797276) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939156)

Google did a study of how many people used that button. They found it was terribly insignificant, but important to the feel of the Google main page. I can't remember where I heard it of course, but I'm pretty sure it was linked on /.

Re:I'm feeling lucky (1)

adpowers (153922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939240)

That sounds familiar. I would use it more (like when going to a website I am familiar with, and know is number one, but don't want to type or don't know the whole result), but I don't want to have to move my mouse to click. I normally just hit enter, since I don't know a way in Safari to go to the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

That's it?! (2, Insightful)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939160)

Seems like an awful lot of work to boost that particular result...

I gotta agree with the article... buy more text ads...

Re:That's it?! (5, Funny)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939241)

Well, I suppose the button "I'm feeling lucky!" makes a lot more sense in the context of online poker.

In all seriousness, some people I know have started using google IFL links on blogs rather tahn direct links. The idea is that in five years if the Captain Crunch brand changes, an I'm Feeling Lucky search for Captain Crunch will probably take you to the new page.

Re:I'm feeling lucky (5, Funny)

themoodykid (261964) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939179)

I guess if they hit the "I'm feeling lucky" and end up on the Wikipedia page, they probably aren't lucky enough to play online poker anyway.

Re:I'm feeling lucky (1)

vperez (162398) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939351)

If I hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button looking for online poker and ended up at a picture of some guy trying to suck his own cock (which is what is on the wikipedia site at the time) i dont think i'd hit that button ever again... much less visit wikipedia :p

Re:I don't understand (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939223)

I think the first link said it about right:
This stunt actually will increase blog spam volume for online poker in order for the spammers to compete with the wiki, also it has expanded the number of people trying to spam wiki pages and it will reinvigorate general blog spam for publicizing the fact that blog spamming still works.

Is it any wonder... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939106)

Is it any wonder why many /.ers hate bloggers and blogging?

Re:Is it any wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939139)

with all the dupes slashdot _IS_ a blog.

Do the ends justify the means? (4, Interesting)

tylernt (581794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939132)

On one hand, it seems that "stooping" to the level of spammers seems as evil as the spamming itself.

On the other hand, maybe this is an appropriate response -- fighting fire with fire.

Only time will tell if the cure is worse than the disease... but at the moment, I think it's kind of cool to use the spammers' own tactics against them.

Re:Do the ends justify the means? (2, Insightful)

dilvie (713915) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939184)

In this case, the page is highly relevant, and the links are being placed by website owners on their own websites, rather than spammed to comment pages and referrer logs by automated spambots. There's a big difference.

Free advertising (2, Interesting)

CRepetski (824321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939253)

Does anyone else see this as free advertising for the 9 other sites that Google returns?


Like Wikipedia Can Spare the Bandwidth (2, Funny)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939135)

Wikipedia's slow as a turd as it is. Thanks guys!

Unsolicited advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939237)

...slow as a turd...

Dude, buy a laxative. Remember, Elvis died straining at his stool.

Re:Like Wikipedia Can Spare the Bandwidth (1)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939350)

It's all Lubos Motl's fault. (It's funny, laugh. See the quantum loop gravity section on wikipedia.)

Pointless (5, Insightful)

Superfreaker (581067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939141)

Google Bombing is used to get your one page higher, it doesn't do anything to the other sites' ranking except to the single site you may displace off the top 10 results.

Uh, why? (5, Insightful)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939142)

Yes, I read the article. This seems to be a "fight fire with fire" solution and is probably just going to make things worse.

The stupid online poker comment spam *is* annoying, yes, but is Googlebombing Wikipedia really a viable solution?

The Wiki didn't come up 3rd when I looked a few minutes ago (it was 5th) and doesn't Google specifically say "Don't do stuff like this!" in their help documentation?
I hope this doesn't backfire.

Re:Uh, why? (2, Interesting)

jx100 (453615) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939201)

The difference in ranking could be due to the fact that there are different google servers around the world. Each one does its own ranking, and different servers can give different results for the same terms.

two wrongs makes a right? (5, Insightful)

mcguyver (589810) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939149)

I can't see this as a good thing.
1. Blog spammers will fight back at blogs - mostly innocient people who have nothing to do with this war.
2. Blog spam can get wikipedia in trouble by violating Google's guildelines [] .
3. The recent nofollow [] tag attribue will dimish the value of blog spam.

Re:two wrongs makes a right? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939190)

No, but three lefts do.

W3C non-compliant (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939347)

"nofollow" is not part of W3C's Link Types [] , but what a heck... we love Google... now, if Microsoft did the same to an open standard, we would tear them apart, wouldn't we?!

6th position here (1)

fungus (37425) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939150)

Could the slashdotting have triggered a protection against google-bombing?

Re:6th position here (1)

Worminater (600129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939210)

third position for me... try clicking directly on the link in the article...:p I think this entire concept is pretty dumb. I dont think they actually think they are going to deter spam; i think its more of a "lets see if we can do this" even if they dont realize it, whomever started it is probably giggling away with what they started

Burn them (-1, Troll)

Manip (656104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939153)

String them up and burn their rotting corpse! ... Kill Kill Destroy!!

I am all of these online casino bastards to die... (5, Insightful)

AdityaG (842691) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939155)

but how the hell does this help? The online casino people are still going to spam your blog. Just because one link out of the 31 million pages wont deter a user. There are paid ads anyways. This is a waste of time if you ask me. A better way to combat this would be to come together to maybe come up with a plugin or hack to have a 100% system against spam.
So the online casinos would be forced to stop auto spamming people.

Of course this trouble will never end if these companies have like little gnomes manually spamming blog/blog rings.

Re:I am all of these online casino bastards to die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939342)

I am all of these online casino bastards ...

So you're the lowlife that's been spamming my blog!

Online Poker (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939175)

And linking Online Poker [] to Wikipedia will help because? These bloggers have way too much time on their hands. I'm pretty sure the absence of blogs would result in significant productivity gains at most American companies.

Don't get it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939178)

Uhhh... for those who don't follow blogs very much: Can somebody explain what is going on?

Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw. (2, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939180)

Googlebombing is just a result of the problem where Google can return totally irrelevant results to a search: pages that don't even contain the phrase/words being looked for.

A good example is a search on "to be or not to be". Even in quotes, 2 or so of the top 10 results are dross: they do not even contain the phrase. Google has some great things, like so many more results and caching, but it is annoying to have bogus results come up like this. If they, by default, actually returned only the pages that contained what you were looking for, the googlebombing "abuse" problem would vanish. There is a keyword (either noanchor or inanchor?) that ensures that Google produces accurate, relevante results, but you have to type it in.

Even more importantly, it would get rid of the bogus/irrelevant results in searches and make the search experience a lot better. You'd only get online poker sites containing "onlike poker".

Re:Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw. (1)

tbuckner (861471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939301)

Returning irrelevant results is a dagger aimed at the heart of a search engine. Google rules because it gives *relevant* results. If it fails to do this, some other engine will be the new google. I gave up on 'ask jeeves' and altavista years ago for that very reason.

Re:Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw. (0)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939327)

"Google rules because it gives *relevant* results"

No, it rules because of caching and having a lot MORE results. It certainly isn't succeeding at relevance when it is easy to do searches and have results that don't even contain what you are looking for.

I gave up on Altavista because it had fewer results than Google and no caching. However, at the time I ditched it, searches would come up 100% relevant on Altavista, but only 80% relevant on Google. It was a lot more accurate. AskJeeves I never really used much because it was and is a visual mess.

Re:Googlebombing is part of Google's design flaw. (2, Insightful)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939356)

Sounds like your not using it right.

"to be +or not to be" (quotes and all) give you nothing but appropriate answers on the fist page.

Affiliate schemes (4, Interesting)

leathered (780018) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939181)

The poker sites themselves are not directly to blame, however it's their affiliate programs such as this one [] which encourage the spamsters.

As you can see they can be quite lucrative. Spammers also post poker site's software to Usenet and p2p networks together with a bonus code that benefits their account, with some steady play these bonuses can be cleared in no time leaving themselves a tidy profit.

Are Google et. al. screwed? (2, Insightful)

PHPgawd (744675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939185)

If the counter-bombers can counter-bomb, then the spammers can counter-counter-bomb, and so on. This sounds like nuclear war, but with keywords.

The only problem is, the automated robots that Google et. al. use are based on rules, and those rules will ALWAYS be able to be reverse-engineered by spammers.

Is there any way out of this?

(And please don't just say, "Google can just hire a bunch of people to look at stuff" because that won't scale to billions of Internet pages).

Ideas anybody?

Re:Are Google et. al. screwed? (1)

tylernt (581794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939239)

"This sounds like nuclear war, but with keywords."

And without the massive casualties, radiation burns, vomiting, hair loss, and slow, painful death from cancer or immune system failure.

Re:Are Google et. al. screwed? (2, Insightful)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939256)

Well, having a legit link to Wikipedia and having the comment links (and thus the spamming links) default to ref=nofollow would be a pretty workable solution.

How would you reverse-engineer it?

Re:Are Google et. al. screwed? (0)

Peridriga (308995) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939284)

Google needs to start altering their PR technology to begin patching some of the holes in their searches that are skewing their results towards useless. Sometimes searches only turn on SEO optimized pages. I want content..

Willy on Wheels! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939203)

Willy on Wheels [] is the ultimate Wikipedia vandal! []

What Can Google Do? (1, Redundant)

Krankheit (830769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939206)

Is Google doing anything to stop Google bombing? Is there anything they can do? I'm hoping Google will improve their GoogleBot so that sites that Google bomb to get into the top ten ranking stop getting in the top ten ranking, unless they truely what the user wants to see (informative). Wikipedia is likely to be quite informative though, so IMO this particular Google bomb is justified.

Simple solution to Googlebombing. (4, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939310)

"Is Google doing anything to stop Google bombing?"

I detailed this elsewhere. All Google has to do is add a filter to its results so that pages that do not actually contain the search word/phrases do NOT show up in result lists.

This used to be standard search-engine behaviour, and because of this, results used to be a lot more accurate (unless they were merely outdated, but even in this case, the results were accurate at one time!).

Re:What Can Google Do? (1)

Worminater (600129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939328)

Is Google doing anything to stop Google bombing? Is there anything they can do? I'm hoping Google will improve their GoogleBot so that sites that Google bomb to get.....

Talk about Googlespam

Unprotected (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939208)

The Wikipedia page is currently third in Google.

And the Wikipedia page is not protected [] right now which means that the spammers or trollers can add their links directly to that page by clicking edit this page [] link and their changes will be visible immediately. Wikipedia administrators can protect that page by clicking this link [] and adding {{vprotected}} at the top of the article to protect it from vandalism [] .

Would be better to Hentai bomb it (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939215)

or at least consider replacing all such references with Kwazai or other incredibly silly cultural references that are unlikely to be widely used by most Netizens.

After all, wouldn't it be better for Google to bring up a totally useless page in high-rank order than to help the spamsters?

So? (2, Insightful)

CRepetski (824321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939222)

Maybe I'm out of the loop - but what's the big deal?

If I were to search for "online poker" I'd be sure to read the TITLE and the two lines or so that Google gives you from the site to figure out if it was a relevant result or not.

If I already know what online poker is, there's no need for me to go to a wikipedia page, no matter how high it's listed. Conversely, if I'm not interested in playing, I'm not going to go to some site unless I haven't had my daily dose of cookies.

Very few people use the "I'm feeling lucky" button (I remember reading some really low percentage on the Google website, forget what exactly it was) so even getting this site to #1 won't affect discerning users.

All right, you can make the argument that people are stupid and click blindly. Problably. But most people realize after a few seconds if they've gone to an irrelevant result.

Not Really Spamming (1)

Rollsbot (859293) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939231)

Except in this case, what they are doing isn't really spamming. The Wikipedia page actually does include valuable information on the topic of online poker.

Well, at least, I'm guessing it does. I haven't been to it myself.

Wikipedia first for "online poker" (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939233)

Looks like the wiki entry is already first for "online poker" [] .

open proxies through zombie computers (1)

batray (257663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939234)

I have had a problem with blog/forum/bbs spam on my web site for allmost a year. I get about 200 attepts to post gambling, mortgage, or porn spam to my BBS. Most of it comes through open proxy servers which are being accessed by zombie computers. Thus two levels of masking.
The strangest spam I got was for a french buldog site.
I have developed some methods for controling it, but I do not want to divulge them publiclly since the bad guys would then know my counter measures.

French bullDOG? (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939288)

"The strangest spam I got was for a french buldog site"

That does seem strange. If it was a French Bullfrog site instead, it would be quite understandable.

"I have developed some methods for controling it, but I do not want to divulge them publiclly since the bad guys would then know my counter measures"

Yeah, I know. Those French bulldog guys play hardball. They monitor all the Slashdot posts, too, so you are wise not to reveal your tricks. I know myself, that every time someone mods me down, it has to be one of those bulldog spammers.

"Click on for your best Gallic bulldog deals!"

Should have picked a site that fights addiction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939249)

Wouldn't it make more sense to put up a link that would have a possible affect on the spammers' business? I would have gone for a site intended to fight gambling addiction...

I so do not get this. (0, Redundant)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939255)

Could someone please explain what they're trying to accomplish here? This makes no sense to me at all. In any way.

Re:I so do not get this. (1)

Mondoz (672060) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939325)

I don't get it either...

I clicked the link in the first post, and got a picture of a very flexable man performing acts upon himself which were exactly unlike electronic card games.

Is there some kind of FAQ or something I can print out, form into a cup, and vomit into after seeing that image?

The Nuclear Option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939263)

Assuming that this isn't just a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction, it could be that this is an attempt by the bloggers to exercise the nuclear option. The more worthless blog comments are as Google material, the more likely Google is to start ignoring or devaluing them as much as possible. This, presumably, would reduce the enthusiasm of spammers for continuously pounding the bloggers.

WTF (2, Funny)

Stalyn (662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939264)

yo wtf does some dude sucking his own dick have to do with online poker?

Indeed What the Fuck? (1)

bogie (31020) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939314)

Bravo to the trickster. Nothing like seeing hardcore porn showup when you think your clicking onto a benign page about online gambling.

Re:Indeed What the Fuck? (1)

Stalyn (662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939341)

its back to normal... for now... well at least i know that it is indeed possible...thanks Wikipedia I learn something new everyday!!!!

Re:WTF (2, Funny)

tidewaterblues (784797) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939340)

When your gambling debts are high, you do what you have to do to pay them off...

Re:WTF (1)

Rebar (110559) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939354)

I saw it too. Backed up and re-clicked, and it's gone. I really didn't need to see that... is Wikipedia being severly hacked? Maybe one of their servers is only serving the "autofellatio" page?

Well anyway... you learn something new every day it seems.

=O (0, Offtopic)

FoXDie (853291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939268)


Some clever bastard.... (4, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939280)

...has appearantly linked to "autofellatio.jpg". Wikipedia was a bad choice, what with the inherent ability for *anyone* to alter the page.

Bloggers are hilariously stupid. (2)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939291)

What on earth are they thinking? That by boosting the page rank of one particular page nobody will notice the other nine pages that link to online poker sites in a Google search? They are so locked in the mentality of link whoring and otherwise abusing Google's search results that they see everything in the world as how it is related to Google. Imagine a mechanical engineer trying to design an auto transmission by putting up a page with a bunch of links to the Wikipedia entry for "Automobile transmission" and hoping Google spiders it.

Well, no surprises here: it turns out that the vapid tools who maintain "blogs" really are as stupid as they seem.

WTF? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939294)

Am I the only one who saw a fucking DISTURBING image when loading this page?

Is it just me? (2, Informative)

Aeiri (713218) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939296)

Or is the "Online Poker" page redirecting to a picture of a guy trying to suck his own penis? I'm not being a troll, trying to be funny, nothing, I'm being serious...

Did someone rig the page to redirect to that or something? Because I was expecting text, not... disturbing... pictures.

Information (1)

UnRDJ (712762) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939297)

Here's some information on Online Poker [] incase anyone isn't familiar with it.

Blog spam is way outta control (1, Interesting)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939302)

I've had a lame little blog for the past 9 months or so, mainly just a place for me to repost links for my friends to see. Anyway, in the last 3 months or so the comment spam has been really out of control. I have filters setup in a way that the comment spam never makes it to my page, but what it does do is generate about 100 emails to my admin account everytime that goddamn online poker motherfucker spams my server. Every email reads something like this:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 01:01:45 -0500 (EST)

A new comment on the post #66 "I'm Back" is waiting for your approval

Author : free online poker (IP: ,

E-mail :


Whois : .252.73.2


poker tips [] - WPT, free poker online | poker books [] - texas holdem, world poker tour | internet poker [] - partypoker, texas hold'em poker | partypoker [] - poker books, party poker | poker rooms [] - poker tournaments, paradise poker | online poker [] - partypoker, partypoker | poker [] - poker rules, online poker rooms | empire poker [] - world poker tour, online poker sites | paradise poker [] - poker games, internet poker | internet poker [] - poker stars, paradise poker | poker stars [] - internet poker, poker tips | world poker tour [] - poker tips, poker tournaments | poker online [] - poker chips, poker tips

To approve this comment, visit:
To delete this comment, visit:

Currently 146 comments are waiting for approval. Please visit the moderation panel:


He does it from zombies so it's a different IP address every time, and recently they've stopped putting anything with the word "poker" in the comments because they figured out that by now most bloggers have the keyword poker filtered and the comments never reach the page.

You know what is the most aggravating thing of all? Even though none of the comments have ever made it through my moderation system, the fuckers still try and spam my server every single day!!! It's aggravating beyond belief and pretty much makes me not want to bother running a blog any more. I guess I can have a little more sympathy for what the Slashdot editors have to put up with (although on a much smaller scale).

this is stupid (1)

jaydonnell (648194) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939305)

This is stupid ane here is why. 1. This does nothing. It only takes up one spot on the google rankings so everyone will just keep blog spamming for the other 9. 2. It brings more publicity to the fact that blog spamming works and will probably lead to more blog spamming. The spammers may even spam more to compete with the wiki page ;)

WARNING (2, Informative)

Nailer (69468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939309)

The link is now a pciture of someonee fellating themselves.


Nailer (69468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939359)

Its been fixed now:

Revision as of 01:11, 15 Mar 2005
Line 1:- #REDIRECT[[de:en:Image:Autofellatio.jpg]]


bujoojoo (161227) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939362)

Now fixed.

ok so you arnt the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939313)

Aeiri, I was the post above you too.. i see this as well, but only when accesing from FireFox, I went through IE and didn't get that.. I held a book in front of the screen and slowly pulled it down until I could read the title, heh.

the internet (0, Offtopic)

PoopJuggler (688445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939320)

is now just a giant unending circular assfuck frenzy

Better way to fight it (2, Informative)

teslatug (543527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939324)

Wouldn't it be better to implement the rel="nofollow" [] for these links? After all, they should be trying to punish the spammers, not reward Wikipedia (which is good but doesn't help with the spam problem).

Wikipedia link not safe for work? (2, Informative)

no soup for you (607826) | more than 9 years ago | (#11939326)

The current link to Online Poker in Wikipedia is redirecting me to something I'd rather never have seen.

Here's the Google Cache [] of the actual Wikipedia article (until somebody over there figures out why I was sent to an auto-fellatio site)

Gamblers Anonymous site is probably better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939329)

because it would take revenues away from online poker enthusiasts, not direct them to a list of online poker sites.

Warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939336)

The wiki article now has a dirty picture, totally undafe for work! Grrr....

Autofellatio??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939338)

Ummm, looks like the online poker people are hitting back.. Not a nice redirect!

GET /wiki/Online_poker HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,tex t/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive
Referer: l?tid=217&tid=1

HTTP/1.x 302 Moved Temporarily
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:16:19 GMT
Server: Apache
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.10
Vary: Accept-Encoding,Cookie
Cache-Control: private, s-maxage=0, max-age=0, must-revalidate
Location: .jpg
Content-Encoding: gzip
Content-Type: text/html
Age: 39
X-Cache: HIT from
Connection: close

You have been vandalized LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939349)

Image:Autofellatio.jpg is the Wikipedia equivilent of Goatse! It is the vandal's weapon of choice. Trolls and Vandals unite to screw Slashdot!

Establishes a baseline (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939358)

It's an interesting exercise in that it weeds out those sites that are aggressively spamming from those that aren''s how it works.

If 10,000 bloggers googlebomb using wikipedia and there still remains 5 or 6 links above wikepedia then those links probably are most culpable. At that point you could excise those links using the
various filtering programs.

A little help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11939368)

Okay, I've read the post three times now, and it still doesn't make any sense to me: who are the bloggers getting back at? Wikipedia? Spammers? Online poker sites?

And what happened in the first place that has the bloggers up in arms? (I've been cut off from the Internet for a week...)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?