Beta
×

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!

Google Reacts to Splogs

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 9 years ago | from the spam-is-everywhere dept.

Google 170

labnol writes "Recently, Mark Cuban of Icerocket made the accusation that Blogger is by far the worst offender when it comes to Spam Blogs. Now Google Blogger is introducing Word Verification for user comments to prevent comment spam and another feature called Flag As Objectionable where users can report blogs with questionable content. Google appears to be listening."

cancel ×

170 comments

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

good for google (-1)

blinksilver (889330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363756)

When i open my blogger the first comment i got was spam, nice to know they are working on it.

Re:good for google (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363759)

how insightful!!! thank you intarweb!!!

Re:good for google (5, Informative)

croddy (659025) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363778)

No, this is not about reducing spam in the comments on blogs. This is about reducing the number of blogs whose authors post only spam. The number of such blogs is enormous -- most counts put it between half and 2/3.

Re:good for google (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363811)

The number of such blogs is enormous -- most counts put it between half and 2/3.

I'm not sure I'd call any number less than one "enormous".

Re:good for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363853)

Would you prefer the numbers 50% and 66% ?

Re:good for google (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363909)

yes

Re:good for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364050)

Oh, in that case: 50% and 66%

Re:good for google (4, Interesting)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363814)

This is about reducing the number of blogs whose authors post only spam. The number of such blogs is enormous -- most counts put it between half and 2/3.

Good thing it is being done too - I'd hate to be excluded from the other search engines because I've got a few blogs with Blogspot/Blogger. Gets rid of that whole "guilt by association" thing.

BTW: The 'flag as objectional' button hasn't shown up yet on any blogs I post to.

Re:good for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364617)

it only shows up once blogs are republished

Re:good for google (3, Informative)

blinksilver (889330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363865)

Off the above link "We've just introduced the option to require word verification for comments. This option (off by default) gives bloggers a tool to prevent the automatic creation of comments by nefarious ne'er-do-wells (e.g. spammers). Features like comment captcha and flag as objectionable are not complete solutions to the problem of spam. But they are additional tools that can help address it." I may just be missing something but what is word verification about then if not to stop spammer (bots) from leaving unwanted comments?

Re:good for google (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363951)

Because a splog = spam blog. Splog != comment spam. So while this helps reduce comment spam (a *separate* problem), it is the flag option that will help reduce splogs

Re:good for google (1)

jm1973 (789334) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363968)

"I may just be missing something but what is word verification about then if not to stop spammer (bots) from leaving unwanted comments?" You're right. The ability to turn on captchas in Blogger comments is to fight the spammers/spam bots leaving comments. The "flag?" feature is to flag (among other things) splogs. Two different tools, but with the same goal of reducing spammers of some sort.

SHUT UP NIGGER! SHUT UP NIGGER! SHUT UP NIGGER! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363927)

shut up nigger!

Re:good for google (1)

sud_crow (697708) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364122)

Actually is both. Even the ./ intro tells that.

Re:good for google (2, Informative)

badasscat (563442) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364133)

No, this is not about reducing spam in the comments on blogs. This is about reducing the number of blogs whose authors post only spam.

Sheesh, I know it's de rigeur here to not read the article, but at least read the freakin' summary.

Now Google Blogger is introducing Word Verification for user comments to prevent comment spam

What part of that don't you understand?

And I say it's about time too. I have a (very unpopular, sporadically updated) blog on Blogger/Blogspot - linked above - and every single time I post an update I get at least 3 or 4 nearly instantenous spam comments. I have to check the next day and go through and delete them manually as it is now.

Of course, the really annoying thing is these are the only comments I ever get! But I guess that's to be expected with a blog that's updated approximately once every three months...

Re:good for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364351)

Perhaps not creating an entry on Puffy AmiYumi would help the popularity. :-P

Finally (3, Interesting)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363760)

I've been writing to Blogger/Google about a lot of fake blogs for a while and I'm glad to see Flag as Objectionable come into play. After a while I just got tired of doing it and stopped.

Up until now there was nothing they or the surfer could do - good work Google.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363870)

Up until now there was nothing they or the surfer could do - good work Google.

cowabunga dude! like totally tubela.

Enough already! (5, Funny)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363765)

Please neologize without sounding like you're spitting on the floor.

Re:Enough already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364015)

Please neologize without sounding like you're spitting on the floor.

For people like me with a week vocabulary:

Neologize [dict.org]
To introduce or use new words or terms or new uses of old words.

Slashdot headline: Google Reacts to Splogs

Re:Enough already! (3, Funny)

TheUz (675711) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364311)

For people like me with a week vocabulary:

That should be weak, my friend.

A week is seven days. This post, correcting your misuse of the word, "week," is weak.

= )

Flag Roland! Oh please, oh please, oh please! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363770)

It doesn't get much more spammish or objectionable than that!

Lock the barnyard! (5, Funny)

Reaperducer (871695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363779)

Lock the barn. Hide you farm animals. The pigs are nervous.
This could lead to more cases like this one [scruffydan.com] .

I too got a couple of spams (1)

TarryTops (888130) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363794)

and again today. Verification does make it a tab bit difficult when people are quickly wanting to comment and leave but it has it's benefits as well. I'm for it. Go Google Go!

Wikipedia article. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363802)

Wikipedia has an article about it here [wikipedia.org] .

well isn't that just wonderful (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363824)

Wikipedia has an article about every damn thing. Whoop dee fuckin' doo.

Re:Wikipedia article. MODS - it links to Penis (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364468)

It seems a new troll has developed, where someone can create a Wiki forward link to another Wiki topic.

Slashsplogs (5, Funny)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363804)

Mark Cuban of Icerocket made the accusation that Blogger is by far the worst offender when it comes to Spam Blogs.

Mark Cuban of Icerocket, allow me to introduce you to Roland Piquepaille of Slashdot...

I thought it was a coincidence, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363806)

apparently this is that Mark Cuban, i.e. the Mavs owner who made a fortune in the dot-bomb era.

I was going to make a wisecrack about the letting Steve Nash go. [blogmaverick.com]

Re:I thought it was a coincidence, but... (0, Flamebait)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363918)

wow, nothing gets by you. did you know that john carmack runs armadillo aerospace?

Re:I thought it was a coincidence, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363936)

Well, I'm an occasional slashdot reader and an occasional NBA fan, so plenty gets by me on both fronts. Even occasional hoops fans know all about Cuban, though.

I can see it now.. (5, Insightful)

pickyouupatnine (901260) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363809)

.. Blogger getting bombarded by all sorts of "Questionable Content" flags from all sorts of extremely left / right / PC people ... soon they won't be able to keep up w/ the flags and will just turn off the feature.. :-/

Re:I can see it now.. (4, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363948)

There's a way to keep people from using Mark as Objectionable to censor political opinions. You have to be logged in to mark, and the blog keeps track of who it is making the mark. Whoever owns the blog can go over the marks, remove any inappropriate ones and, if somebody's abusing the privilege, eject them. Of course, there has to be a way to keep them from simply signing up again, such as checking for a banned email address. Yes, I know how easy it is to create throw-away addresses, but it might slow them down a little.

Re:I can see it now.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364339)

Or better yet, just silently dump the marks from flagged accounts. They don't know they've been flagged, their objections are just dropped, and they continue blisfully ignorant, without registering a new blog.

Re:I can see it now.. (4, Insightful)

svkal (904988) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364034)

Actually, this probably won't be too much of a problem if they base their system on ratios rather than individual complaints, which I assume they will given the huge number of individual flaggings that will necessarily take place.

The ratio of flaggings to unique visitors in a given timeframe will generally be higher for spam than controversial opinions. This is because people are more likely to report sites that will actually be deleted, instead of pointless political demonstrations to a one-man audience of some random Blogger employee, and because there is no significant number of unique visitors to a spam site that "agree" with the site's content(as there generally is for a political blog).

So, for normal circumstances, having an employee periodically go through the sites with the highest flagging ratios will give pretty good results.

Now, one could also expect campaigning, i.e. higher-traffic sites directing their audience to report lower-traffic sites with "undesirable opinions", but this could only be done for a manageable number of sites. These, after being inspected to make sure that they actually are not spam, could be flagged with an 'innocent' flag by the employee, exempting them from further inspection(after all, political blogs aren't likely to suddenly turn into spam blogs).

Does anybody really care... (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363822)

... other than the bloggers, themselves? I don't read blogs or post to blogs, so what impact will this have on me? Why should I care that blogs get spammed?

Re:Does anybody really care... (3, Informative)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363839)

Distorted google rankings (and accordingly worsened search results), that's why. -- Paul

Re:Does anybody really care... (1)

BuddyJesus (835123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363860)

... other than the bloggers, themselves? I don't read blogs or post to blogs, so what impact will this have on me? Why should I care that blogs get spammed?
Um, it's not blogs getting spammed, it's blogs being used to spam links and bump other blogs up in ratings to increase pageviews. Besides, you're reading a blog right now, because that's what Slashdot is in a sense.

Re:Does anybody really care... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363878)

No slashdot is not a blog. You just seem to be retarded like people who don't understand the difference between engineering and technology either.

Re:Does anybody really care... (1)

BuddyJesus (835123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363891)

"No slashdot is not a blog. You just seem to be retarded like people who don't understand the difference between engineering and technology either."
I'm sorry, the last time I checked, people posting interesting news stories and or questions from other websites and then having others comment on them was the very epitome of blogging.

Re:Does anybody really care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363983)

No, it isn't.

Blogging is a personal "web log" of some person or some group. Slashdot is a news aggregator.

Re:Does anybody really care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364044)

It was only a few years ago, if people were asked to name a "weblog" /. would be the number one pick. It was called that by many folks before "blogger" became a common word.

Re:Does anybody really care... (1)

BuddyJesus (835123) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364049)

Blogging is a personal "web log" of some person or some group. Slashdot is a news aggregator.

So Slashdot isn't the personal web log of CmdrTaco and his friends? And since when could a news aggregator not be a blog?

Indian image-word-verification workers (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363829)

Google Blogger is introducing Word Verification for user comments to prevent comment spam

I once spoke with the VP of a company that was merging with the company I was doing contract work for (both companies were very small, so we had a lunchroom chat).

He revealed that there were a number of "email blast" (ie email spam outsourcers) that were happy to have dozens of Indian employees on staff ready to do the image-word verification and reply-to-this-email-to-be-whitelisted emails many think-they're-super-smart people had set up.

Why does anyone think the "illegitimate" spammers don't do exactly the same thing? Especially when, at $5/hr (about what US min wage is, I think) 5 seconds of effort (an overestimate, most likely, after you've been doing it for an hour) works out to about 2/3rds of a CENT...and that has the potential to reach hundreds of people before someone flags it? ONE worker could do 720 an hour...

Re:Indian image-word-verification workers (2, Insightful)

learn fast (824724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363867)

What you say may be true but it certainly isn't an argument against adding this kind of verification. If you make it more costly to do, it will happen less.

What they really ought to do is use a Bayesian classifier to tell them which blogs are spam and which aren't.

Re:Indian image-word-verification workers (1)

UnrefinedLayman (185512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364184)

What they really ought to do is use a Bayesian classifier to tell them which blogs are spam and which aren't.
Just about the last thing Google should be doing is full-text statistical analysis. The leap from statistical analysis of blog content to statistical analysis of web content in search of terrorists or dissenting voices or whatever conveniently classified scapegoats is as large a leap as any electron has to make.

Re:Indian image-word-verification workers (1)

adpowers (153922) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364291)

Uhh, I imagine they are already doing full text statistical analysis. How do you think they get such cool features as Google Sets (and the back end stuff that powers that; all the word/idea clustering technology). Personalized search using Search History, they have to analyze the web and your searches for that. Heck, even their search algorithms could probably be considered full-text statistical analysis. So, don't get your panties in a knot, they are already doing stuff like that on a scale that I can't possibly comprehend.

Re:Indian image-word-verification workers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364063)

Ha! What a waste of money.

Real spammers set up free porn websites, and simply pass through the image for verification to their users for their own 'verification'. Why pay people to verify you, when you can make money off of advertisements from some third rate porn site, and have people voluntarily verify you?

That's great -- makes spam cost them something! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364585)

The reason why spam is such a problem is because it is free (after the fixed costs for your Internet connection, etc.) If we could make email spam cost something, it would be a problem more along the lines of telemarketers or junk mail. Not a solved problem, but it would be much better than the situation today. So if they can do the same for blogs, good on them!

Even at a half cent per spam it would probably deter the vast majority of spammers who would use the many other avenues of free spam.

Listening. (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363831)

Google appears to be listening.

Well, Google IS what those blogs are targeting...

'flag as objectionable' - what? (0)

tidepool (137349) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363833)

While I commend them on their fight against comment spam, I do have to question the second 'addition' to the list: Flag as objectionable.

I thought that a blog was to post anything you wanted to post about. It's a personal entry that allows you to add your voice to the other thousands/millions of voices out there - without having to hire your own hosting or mooch off friends.

What is the use for 'flag as objectionable'? If you object to something, here's a hint: Don't read it. This reeks of censoirship.

I for one fully support anything people want to write: It just makes the internet the internet, and the press the press.

Like it or not, there IS still a (fading) difference.

peace,
bny

Mod Parent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363842)

-1, objectionable.

Re:'flag as objectionable' - what? (1)

captainktainer (588167) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363869)

I have similar qualms about it- however, if Google makes it clear that "Flag as objectionable" is only to be used for spam or flooding, and that they will *not*, under any circumstance, censor anything but spam, then it isn't a big deal.

Blogger has certain terms of service, which include not being a spamming retard. They don't want to pay to host spam. Do *you* want to pay to host spam? Fine, then; do it on your own servers. Spammers don't have to use Blogger to screw over the internet; they can buy their own boxes and set them up. They still have the right to free (as in freedom) commercial speech; they just don't have the right to use other people's resources to spread their free (as in beer) speech.

Re:'flag as objectionable' - what? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363932)

As I read it, it was somewhat more nefarious. It was describing something to remove from the public listing all blogs that had content that the public considered objectionable.

That said, Google claims that they'll do nothing to the blog itself, except possibly put a warning that it's got objectionable content, if it's reported as objectionable enough times. They WILL remove it from the public listing, though.

Re:'flag as objectionable' - what? (1)

jm1973 (789334) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363955)

A followup [blogger.com] was posted on Blogger Buzz trying to explain further just what will happen to flagged blogs. The way I read it was that no blog will be _removed_ unless it violated the Terms of Service, but blogs flagged as objectionable by a wide range of users will be delisted.

Flag As Objectional: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363858)

Schwartz........

:ducks:

Oh yeah (4, Informative)

dedazo (737510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363874)

Blogspot is overflowing with these. Take a look at this this [blogspot.com] for example(don't want to go there with IE, BTW), or this one [blogspot.com] or this one [blogspot.com] .

If you use the 'next blog' randomizing feature on blogs you'll see that roughly one out of five 'blogs' are nothing but link farms, worm repositories and bullshit like that.

And this has been going on for quite a while. We all know that Google has a fondness for indexing Blogger content rather quickly, and so do the spammers. It's about time the company did something about it.

Re:Oh yeah (2, Funny)

JimBobJoe (2758) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363973)

Take a look at this this for example(don't want to go there with IE, BTW)

I have never wanted to go to a website so much after I saw that warning.

After I submit this post, I'm restarting Mozilla, as that site has caused it to memory leak worse than the Exxon Valdez.

Re:Oh yeah (2, Informative)

dedazo (737510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364080)

It has embedded images in the HTML - it uses the 'cid' format, whatever that is. I think it's a Microsoft thing.

Firefox kept asking me if I wanted to "launch the application".

Re:Oh yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364367)

Wow. I've never seen so many items blocked by Adblock on a single page. But Firefox carried on happily. And I may add a few more regexps to the blocklist...
Adblock is the best extension ever. I can't imagine what this hellpage looks like if all this shit weren't blocked.

Re:Oh yeah (1)

adpowers (153922) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364258)

Thanks for posting those, I flagged all three. After I noticed this feature yesterday, I went through some random blogs and marked the spam ones. I consider it community service :).

I don't know about Google indexing Blogger sites quickly, though. I created a blog there back in like February. I post their somewhat reliably, and linked to it from my relatively high PageRank website, yet it barely is accessible in Google. I don't think Google has spidered it once (since it only shows the URL when searching, no snippets).

Re:Oh yeah (2, Interesting)

dedazo (737510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364325)

I'm not entirely sure how it works, but I'll tell you how I think it works...

Basically if you're using Blogger as a service and publishing through on your own server, it will index it every time you re-publish the index. That's what I think happens from observation and monitoring the Google cache. I might be wrong.

If you use the Blogspot service then you need at least *one* incoming external link to be indexed. A friend of mine created a blog there, and I linked to it from my blog published to my own server. Within a few days the "page rank" for his blog jumped from "not indexed" or zero to two. Most Blogspot blogs are not linked to from anywhere and so Google does not index them at all.

Take this with a grain of salt - it's just based on my observations over the past few months. It could be just a bunch of coincidences.

*Blogger* is the worst offender in blog spamming? (5, Insightful)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363879)

That's like saying convenience stores are the worst offenders in armed robbery. Surely the offender is the perpetrator, not the victim.

What about 'nofollow'? (2, Interesting)

gregorio (520049) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363895)

Does anyone remember that? Does Google remembers that? Why not 'nofollow' instead of annyoing distorted text confirmation procedures?

Re:What about 'nofollow'? (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364085)

Because we are talking SPLOGS!

No, really we are talking about blogs that are spam themselves - no way to 'nofollow' the entire Blogspot domain without ruining the idea of a blog itself. In fact that would ruin Google considering they count on a lot of what their 'Bloggers' are talking about.

If they decided to 'nofollow' every link I posted in my blog posts I'd jump ship quick.

Re:What about 'nofollow'? (1)

SolidGround (883883) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364274)

I still completely fail to see the problem with splogs. It's not like anyone is going to subscribe to those or bother reading them since it's rather obvious what they are.

I can see the argument that they pollute search engines but they're polluted with spam regardless of splogs.

Re:What about 'nofollow'? (1)

cecil_turtle (820519) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364290)

Check it:
Keeping Comments Clean [blogger.com]

So yes, all links in comments are already set with the "nofollow" attribute, but Word Verification is in addition to that to prevent the comments from being autonomously posted in the first place. Word Verification can be enabled or disabled by the blog author.

Accessible? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364497)

Word Verification can be enabled or disabled by the blog author.

But anybody who turns it on is likely to run afoul of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or foreign counterparts.

IT'S A GOOD THING SLASHDOT ISN'T A "BLOG" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363897)

ELSE THE FOLLOWING MAY CONSTITUTE AS "SPLOG". WE'LL KEEP SLASHDOT SIMPLY CLASSIFIED AS A PLACE FOR TECHNOFAGGOTS TO MASTURBATE COMMUNIST SOFTWARE PHILOSOPHIES!

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>__|_/_____t
s______/_/\|___C_____)_______|__(___>___/__\____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
# Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting ne# Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.w threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, conside# Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.r logging in or creating an account.

Why isn't the verifaction always on? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363899)

I can't really see a good reason to why Google has that new word verification feature off by default, and like an option...
Why would a blogger not want to know it's a human behind a keyboard... by default?

Re:Why isn't the verifaction always on? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363941)

Well, some bloggers may not like the changes. Look at all the Karma: Normals and ACs here that were pissed about the captchas here when Taco rolled them out...

I'm going to enable it on mine, though. I've never had comment spam, but seeing as mine is gaining PageRank, I wouldn't be surprised if I DO get some soon...

Re:Why isn't the verifaction always on? (1)

Monsieur_F (531564) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363971)

In order to have more (legitimate) comments. People who would leave a comment if they only had to press a button would find it annoying to have to copy a word.

W3C: Inaccessibility of Visual Anti-Robot Tests (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364511)

I can't really see a good reason to why Google has that new word verification feature off by default

Probably something to do with laws requiring companies to make their products accessible to people whose disabilities prevent them from seeing images. (Read More... [w3.org] ) Turning on accessibility (that is, turning off word verification) by default means that liability for inaccessible blogs lies with the blog administrator, not with Google.

Censorship??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13363914)

Does this mean Angry Harry [angryharry.com] or Bob's Truth [blogspot.com] can be filtered if enough people find the sites objectionable?

Pity they are not listening... (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363916)

...when it comes to google groups...

Can Google Solve the LJ_Abuse Problem? (4, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363921)

Ahhh, but will Google solve the problem that LiveJournal has? The problem I'm talking about is the LiveJournal_Abuse team, which has always been made up of volunteers and will ban anyone on any whim for any reason, reasonable or not. I made a community called "DIERIAA" and the purpose of the community was to point people to cool free music. Within twenty minutes of having the community made it was shut down for "promoting the illegal piracy of music." And not one single post had even been made in the community. Will Google be able to solve a problem like that?

Re:Can Google Solve the LJ_Abuse Problem? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364011)

Why would Google address a problem with a blog service they don't own?

If you don't like LJ's policies, take your business elsewhere.

Judging by most of the people who have LJ's, I'd say there isn't much you'd be leaving behind.

Re:Can Google Solve the LJ_Abuse Problem? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364123)

He's talking about the corruption problem in general. Like what happens with mail spam blacklists [paulgraham.com]

Re:Can Google Solve the LJ_Abuse Problem? (1)

magefile (776388) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364144)

After reading DIERIAA, I assumed this was going to be a rant about how they assumed it was a misspelling of diarrhea rather than Die RIAA.

"Questionable Content" (2, Interesting)

Drew Curtis (904851) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363930)

I hope this isn't part of their Chinese firewall partnership, so they can remove dissenting blogs - one of the last bastions of effective political change.

Sounds great...except... (3, Interesting)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#13363940)

What happens when (I didn't say if) affiliates of _________ political party start "flagging as objectionable" blogs written by those they disagree with? What happens when religious wackos flag sex blogs as objectionable? TFA says Blogger tracks the number of times a blog is flagged objectionable and base their action on that, not that they review whether something is actually bad. This could be trouble.

What unit is Cuban using? (1)

Cerdic (904049) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364010)

How many splogs are there and how many posts do they carry ? Its difficult to quantify, but I wouldnt be shocked if we have excluded more than 1mm of them at IceRocket.

1mm? 1 millimeter of bloggers? Doesn't seem like much to me.

Or is he using a multiplicative expression with Roman Numerals? MM is M*M = 1000*1000 = 1000000.

Re:What unit is Cuban using? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364098)

Consider that each relatively new (as most Splogs are) blog takes up on average 3 KB of space on a hard drive (size of average e-mail text spam, which is then uplaoded to Splog),

and based on the fact that Blogger.com uses Maxtor MX830HA hard drives with an average surface capacity of 300 MB per platter (x20 = 60 GB),

each platter being 212 tracks,

so each track holds 1.4 MB, and take the radius of 3 inches times 2pi to get circumference of approx 19 inches, which is 48 cm, or about 500 mm.

So you have 500 mm holding 1.4 MB, which means 0.0028 MB per mm, or 2.8 KB per mm.

So 1mm = ~ a single Splog.

Re:What unit is Cuban using? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364422)

My guess is that it's an acronym for "million messages".

So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (3, Insightful)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364042)

Upon reading some of his comments verbatim it is shocking how inarticulate and rambling he is. Seems reasonable to me to label him as radio SPAM - he certainly has the figure for it.

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (0, Redundant)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364084)

I'm sure you'd love nothing more than to see Limbaugh and other conservative radio personalities silenced.

But wait, I thought free speech was good, and censorship bad!

I had exactly that thought when I read this article. People are going to start reporting blogs with which they disagree as spam in an attempt to have it shut down. I'm surprised (ok, not reallt) to see this kind of sentiment show up here.

When is spam just a difference of opinion? (4, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364151)

People are going to start reporting blogs with which they disagree as spam in an attempt to have it shut down.

That's not a far cry from some of the moderation I've seen here on Slashdot. Disagree with someone's opinion? Mod them down! In general human beings do not like to face things that make them uncomfortable, and coming face to face with opinions that are diametrically opposed to your own really freaks people out.

When I have mod points, I try to take care to only mod people down when I feel that they are engaging in personal attacks or other socially disagreeable behavior. I admit that it is difficult for me to mod up comments that are in opposition to my opinions, but if someone has argued a point well and isn't resorting to ad hominem attacks or perversions of fact, I can sometimes get past my biases and up-mod a post. The less important the issue being discussed, of course, the easier it is for me to up-mod an opinion with which I disagree.

I strongly believe that maintenance of a community that values diversity of opinion is important, both here on Slashdot and in the "real world." Unfortunately it requires effort to maintain community, and much of the communications technology we use today is making it easier and easier for us all to filter out that which we do not want to hear. Perhaps it's not an accident that political discourse in the United States has sunk to such a morass, devoid of any real substance.

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364156)

And I am the one that's always accused of having no working sense of humor. THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364172)

I'm sure you'd love nothing more than to see Limbaugh and other conservative radio personalities silenced.
I'd like to see Limbaugh silenced, but not because he's conservative. I'd like to see him silenced because he's the world's biggest hypocrite(I'm not talking "big" in that way, although he is the world's biggest in that way too--but that's not the important part, and really just making fun of him, which isn't my goal right now). If any liberal radio personality(which, unfortunately, are several times outnumbered by the conservatives) did what Limbaugh did drug-wise, Limbaugh would flame him worse than the flaming of the editors after they post dupes.

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364207)

It's disturbing that you want anyone -silenced- for any reason. If his infraction was so egregious, people would simply stop listening to him.

We don't need people like you to decide for us what or who is worth listening to. It's just as bad as conservative groups who want to 'sanitize' television.

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364262)

Well, silenced is probably the wrong word. I respect his free speech rights. I don't really care about the drugs--I care more about this fact: He said that people doing drugs(just like he did) should be locked up. That just annoys me, and I seriously wish people do stop listening to him, but I don't think people should be silenced.

I guess I just have a knack for using the wrong word.

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364363)

"I guess I just have a knack for using the wrong word."

Would you say you share his trait to bumble your words like Rush does?

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364418)

Possibly, but I don't do it on national radio. ;)

Re:So what happens when Rush Lambaugh gets flaged? (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364474)

Finally! Someone with a real sense of humor, so unlike that base heavy metal guy. I hate rock-&-roll! (Quick: "Off Topic!!")

Regarding the drug adiction, I could give a damn less about Rush's habit if he did it in private and did not pontificate about throwing away the key for those less exalted than himself. Just like Bushie Jr. that implicitly admits to using the hard stuff (years ago), but thinks nothing of sending the poor, uneducated (and certainly those lacking connections) to long jail terms in those plush Texas jails.

How difficult is it for Google? (3, Insightful)

SilentReallySilentUs (908879) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364055)

Is it really that difficult for Google? In addition to the website caches, they have the complete Deja archive at their disposal to train any kind of learning software. Plus, this problem is already solved in Gmail. I agree it hurts when you just spent a few hours writing a blog and the first message you get is "Wow that is really nice! I will read it again. Please see my mortgate site here ..."

Thank heavens... (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364070)

(typetypetype) [Ctrl+L] http://www.technorati.com/ [technorati.com] [Enter]
(typetypetype) "luxuriousity"
(clickety) "Hypnosis Smoking Stop"
(clickety) "Flag!"

In case you weren't aware, there's this Really Ethical (NOT) open source CD distributor out there called Luxuriousity. I'm not linking to them here. Google for them. See their web page then, their atrocious use of business clip art, and their love of rebranding open source programs and trying to make some easy pennies while trying to hide the fact that they're, in fact, selling CDs of stuff that can be downloaded for free from the net. (and if you're wondering what that has to do with hypnosis, well, they're also selling hypnosis MP3s.)

I also noted that lately that they're actually engaging in Blogger spamming. Really nice folks we're dealing with here. There were tons and tons of these Luxuriousity spamblogs last I checked, now all of them had disappeared (one still appears in Technorati but is 404'd).

I definitely welcome the flagging thing; there's tons and tons of spam blogs in blogger. Spam blogs *suck*.

Article title objectionable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13364126)

Did anyone else read that as "sploog"? *shudders*

Questionable content? (1, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364280)

By who's definition?

One persons 'objectional material' is another persons religion.. ( for example )

Yes, i know that its Googles' servers and they get to control content .. bla bla bla bla. Just because its legal doesnt make it the right thing to do.

Now, controlling spam.. more power to them...

Wrong posting user (3, Funny)

iphayd (170761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13364581)

This should have been posted by Roland Piquepaille.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>