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, Submission AdSense and NoFollow Letdown

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the still-watching-through-the-window dept.

104

John Battelle is reporting on his blog that word has leaked about a possible new API from Google that would allow sites to distribute AdSense earnings to individual members based on submissions or participation. From the article: "To toss a bit of cold water here, however, I've never seen UGC sites as the least bit driven by money. They are driven by pride, the desire to be first, reputation, whuffie. But dollars? That often screws it all up. I guess we'll get to see soon enough..." Relatedly many users are calling the 'nofollow' tag "Google's embarrassing mistake". Justin Mason is just one of many to take a look at the current status of nofollow and what may still be in store for that particular tool.

cancel ×

104 comments

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

fds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15437379)

asdf

Ignore Your Rights, +1, Inspirational (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15437409)

and your rights will disappear.

Call [huffingtonpost.com] 1-800-ALQAEDA [whitehouse.org]
and demand the arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing of the world's most dangerous leader.

Cheers,
Kilgore Trout, Patriot

THIRD! (1, Funny)

Kesch (943326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437451)

I posted, now where's my kickback?

Re:THIRD! (2, Insightful)

MountainMan101 (714389) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437473)

Post you VISA card number, expiry date and 3 digit security number, we'll credit you. Please ignore any temporary additions to your statement.

Re:THIRD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15437631)

*kicking Keschs back* There you go. I'll leave the rest to the mods.

You forgot the affiliate links in your post (3, Insightful)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437669)

Steal insightful content from another site, copy and paste here to your slashdot post, sprinkle in amazon (or other) affiliate links in keywords of your post, get modded +5 insightful, sit back and gain $$$.

I know what you want.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15437462)

my giant cock in your ass!

AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (5, Insightful)

orangeguru (411012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437480)

Before Google cranks out another money making extension it should concentrate more on preventing click fraud AND provide tools for websites using AdSense to protect themselves. I know now several sites now that have been kicked out from AdSense - because of Click Fraud - but Google offers no tools, no insights, no answers and no support for those kicked out. Ever tried to talk someone from Google's 'customer service'? No eMail addresses, hardly any responses, mostly ignorance.

Google like to run anything on autopilot and pure technology - no human contact and no problems please. So this will be another Google technology I will ignore, because I can't stand the company and it's current attitude behind it. 'Don't be evil' should be renamed into 'simply ignore everyone'.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (0, Flamebait)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437596)

That's because Google - Slashdot's favorite cock to suck - doesn't give two shits about you or anyone else other than their stock holders. Oh no, got bitch slapped by Google? Well, guess what? There are 50 or 50,000 other people in line behind you. And their money spends just as well.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (2, Interesting)

liliafan (454080) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437663)

I completely agree one of my sites got its adwords shut down because of a minority of people that were making fraudulent clicks, their purpose for doing this? To get my adwords account shutdown. Before these clicks started I had almost $200 in my account from valid clicks they started I got shutdown.

When I attempted to contact google about this they said they will not provide information that could give away their IP methods. They give you the chance to defend against being shut but give you no information on what you are defending against. It is kinda like going to court to defend against charges being brought against you without knowing what the charges are.

Now google is giving site users encouragement to promote click fraud, hey if I write an article for this site and they keep clicking the googleads I will get some of that money....*sigh* Google used to be a good company.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437769)

They give you the chance to defend against being shut but give you no information on what you are defending against. It is kinda like going to court to defend against charges being brought against you without knowing what the charges are.

You do understand that this is the "Law of the Land" here in the USA now...

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (4, Insightful)

FLEB (312391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437837)

Wha'? Courts? Trials? That is so pre-9/11.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

patiodragon (920102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440931)

Absolutely. It's fully matured about 20 years late, but not bad by prophecy standards (I think the w3c covers that, right?).

It's SO worth repeating...
war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength
war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength
war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength [online-literature.com]

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

deanj (519759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437963)

"You do understand that this is the "Law of the Land" here in the USA now..."

Apart from that being pure FUD except in massive conspiracy theories in the tinhat crowd, it IS apparently true for Google.

"Do no evil". Well, guess that's out the Window.

What the hell is this? (3, Interesting)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438357)

Along those lines and speaking of fraud, I was researching a web promotion group, which promises high page results (and seems to deliver too) and I found the most peculiar thing. Take a look at this [google.ie] . If you look at the results there, there are hundreds of links from sites like 6246.u2mme6.info, but if you look at the code for these sites, they aren't as such links. The pages don't load in a browser because of an iframe to a non existent site, but if you download the pages via httrack or one of those, you see the a page of bizarre code. An example of that is here (you'll have to look at the page source to see it, I don't know how to show it in slashdot)...

Spain Car Rental Airport Alicante Car Hire Spain Malaga Faro Car ... [pconaa.info] Cheap San Diego Car rental. City Car Rental San Diego: San Diego Airport Car ... Cheap Dallas Exotic Car Rental  " Dallas Fort Worth Airport Car Rental ...
http://www.pro.ie/marketing-ireland/every-air port-car-rental.htm Cached [qrfju7.info] - Similarpages [s2uigg.info]

Has anyone got any idea what is going on here, or how that might affect their page ranking? Should I report them to google?

Re:What the hell is this? (2, Interesting)

david.given (6740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439355)

Has anyone got any idea what is going on here, or how that might affect their page ranking? Should I report them to google?

Without looking at the sites in question, it sounds like they're detecting the Google spider user-agent and feeding it false information --- which is strictly against the rules. I suppose you should report them, but I don't know if it'll do any good.

When browsing through the lower rent neighbourhoods of the internet, it's sometimes interesting to set your browser's user-agent to report itself as the Google spider and see what happens.

Re:What the hell is this? (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440056)

Why does google use their own user agent? It seems obvious that this is going to result in people abusing it in this way. Why wouldn't they just use the user agent string of a popular browser? If sites don't want to be searched at all, they can use robots.txt. I don't see the legimiate use for being able to give different data to the spider than to everyone else.

Re:What the hell is this? (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440474)

It would be easy to detect anyway, because it always start with downloading robots.txt

Re:What the hell is this? (1)

JourneyExpertApe (906162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440703)

Spiders don't just download spiders.txt and then proceed to download the entire server. They are designed to spread their downloading out over time so as not to overwhelm servers. Besides, they could just have one spider downloading robots.txt and another downloading everything else.

Re:What the hell is this? (1)

hords (619030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440922)

It is nice that they use a different user agent for website statistics. Makes it easier not to count them as a visitor, find out what pages on your site they've been indexing, etc.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437805)

some points

#1 Slashdotted, check if that coral thing helps you:
http://taint.org.nyud.net:8080/2006/05/31/111003a. html [nyud.net]

#2 Reading from blogspam from a blog which will be soon spammed by /.-ers is fun

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

MagicM (85041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437911)

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (2, Informative)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438485)

Actually, Coral CDN is now advocating the use of port 8080 instead of 8090. Both will still work for the time being.

There is more information in this posting to the [coral-announce] list [nyu.edu] .

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (3, Interesting)

tbmcmullen (940544) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437909)

I have a hard time following this "they should do x before doing y". As a rather large company, Google has enough to people to work on both x and y at the same time. So this sentiment that "if they're doing x, they must not be doing y" is stupid.

And I don't want to hear, "oh but I don't see a solution, so they must not be working on y". Bullshit. The issue of ClickFraud is not an easy one to solve. And if you think you can solve it... Then open your own Ad company and put google's ad division out of business.

Re:AdSense - ClickFraud and Google's 'Help' (1)

ouzel (655571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437913)

Preventing click fraud should be the #1 thing they talk about. But do they? Noooo [fuckedgoogle.com] .

Individual Share of Ad Revenue (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437485)


I really don't see a problem with this.

This post brought to you by Unlax, when you got the runs, it'll stop you in your tracts!

Re:Individual Share of Ad Revenue (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 8 years ago | (#15441290)

well... I suppose if you were going to post an entire tract, the runs WOULD prevent that!

And you thought the karma whoring was bad... (5, Insightful)

malibucreek (253318) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437486)

I don't want to imagine the c--p that people will post if they think real money is available. And let's not get started on the click fraud incentive here.

I prefer to *quietly* reward top posters on my sites by offering them paid gigs, but only after they've proven themselves.

Re:And you thought the karma whoring was bad... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438239)

"I prefer to *quietly* reward ..."

that doesn't work for long. Pretty soon people will find out you do that. Of course when they find uot what your giving, they waont care anymore...;)

Easier click fraud (1, Insightful)

crummyname (977083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437516)

Why bother setting up entire web sites to generate fake clicks? Just submit content to a bunch of these revenue-sharing sites and hide under the cover of their traffic. Spammer's paradise!

I know of sites that already do this. (2, Insightful)

iogan (943605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437535)

Like some forums I hang out at. I'd give a link, but I'm not entirely sure it's not against the Adsense TOS, so I'll refrain. But I think it could be a pretty good idea.

Imagine it at work @ Slashdot though: 5+ Funny == 5+ bucks.. I could get into that..

Re:I know of sites that already do this. (2, Funny)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437857)

Imagine it at work @ Slashdot though: 5+ Funny == 5+ bucks.

Unfortunately the current rating of your post is 1. No dinner for you tonight. You'd better get cooking on some funny answers, if you don't want to skip breakfast too.

Re:I know of sites that already do this. (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437932)

Hell, +1 Funny doesn't even get you Karma on Slashdot, I'm pretty sure it won't get you cash if it doesn't even earn you "credit".

Re:I know of sites that already do this. (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437933)

If I had a cent for every time... HEY!
Where's me five bucks?

Re:I know of sites that already do this. (4, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438018)

Imagine it at work @ Slashdot though: 5+ Funny == 5+ bucks.. I could get into that..

Sure, but it goes both ways. -1 offtopic? Pay up, bucko.

Incidentally, that would do wonders for spam...

Re:I know of sites that already do this. (1)

Daagar (764445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439208)

That poor Anonymous Coward guy would be broke in a hurry.

You can make money on Slashdot by posting (2, Interesting)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438084)

I once got $50 from single post. BUT... it was close to Christmas and my list included affiliate links to amazon books and it got moderated +5 Interesting. I haven't been able to do that since... but I haven't really tried either. It was a fluke.

Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (5, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437544)

There are three main reasons nofollow has failed to stop webspam:

  1. It misjudged the root problem -- page rank isn't the only thing spammers are looking for. This is the main point of Justin Mason's post, if I remember correctly. (I read it at home a few hours ago, before it showed up on ./, and of course now I can't pull it up here.)
  2. It relied on near-universal implementation. If even 50% of blogs, wikis, etc. used nofollow, it would still be worth the spammers' effort to blast comment spams to the entire net.
  3. It got applied incorrectly, as a blanket label on all links from non-admins.

What nofollow could have been useful for is a simple "I don't endorse this link" statement so that you can link to sites you dislike without adding to their fame. But applying it to all user-supplied links in blog comments, slashdot threads, wiki pages, etc. diluted its meaning, and as a result, diluted its usefulness.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437825)

What nofollow could have been useful for is a simple "I don't endorse this link" statement so that you can link to sites you dislike without adding to their fame. But applying it to all user-supplied links in blog comments, slashdot threads, wiki pages, etc. diluted its meaning, and as a result, diluted its usefulness.

From the comments of TFA:

pudge said,
May 31, 2006 @ 4:54 pm

I implmented nofollow for Slashdot. And I did it not primarily to reduce comment spam which our moderation system and other tools handle pretty well already, as Slashdot gets very littler comment spam but to reduce the effects of comment spam on search engines. If you post with a comment bonus (which you can get with high karma), you get no nofollow attribute, because we figure, chances are, your links will be useful to the search engines.


I didn't know that about the SlashCode, but it makes sense.

The type of person who blasts multiple sites with automated software isn't likely to spend time building up karma on (multiple) Slashdot accounts for his SpamBot to burn.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438500)

The type of person who blasts multiple sites with automated software isn't likely to spend time building up karma on (multiple) Slashdot accounts for his SpamBot to burn.

Right, they'll just hijack old, abandoned accounts [slashdot.org] to spam from.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (2, Interesting)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439905)

Google "darkmeridian" and basically any slashdot topic for the last year or so that I have posted in and that thread will pop up. The result of Slashdot's high PageRank, the relative uniqueness of my screenname, as well as my pathetic devotion to Slashdot is really scary.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (2, Informative)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437843)

I was going to update my nofollow story [homelandstupidity.us] from a year ago, but it seems nothing's changed -- except that blog spam has dramatically increased. Which anybody could have predicted -- and most people who thought about it for more than a second actually did.

Nofollow was a hare-brained idea from the start, cooked up over a couple of apparently drunken [msdn.com] (or perhaps stoned) nights between developers at Google, Yahoo! and MSN.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438232)

I was going to update my nofollow story from a year ago, but it seems nothing's changed

Heh. I know what you mean. I just re-read your post and followed a pingback to my own comments [hyperborea.org] and realized that I said pretty much the same thing last year that I posted above.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (5, Insightful)

curunir (98273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437890)

While nofollow failed to stop comment spam, that doesn't mean that it failed. On the contrary, it worked quite well. It's only bloggers who still have a comment spam problem that believe it failed. Contrary to the begged question, nofollow was never intended to stop comment spam. It was only intended to stop comment spam from affecting page rank. This is an important distinction.

Comment spam that affects page rank is Google's problem. Comment spam that doesn't have anything to do with page rank is not Google's problem. Google provided a mechanism to bloggers to eliminate a nuisance caused by Google's page rank algorithm. At that point, comment spam is no longer motivated by Google's page rank algorithm.

This blog entry is nothing but sour grapes that Google didn't solve their problem for them.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15438181)

This blog entry is nothing but sour grapes that Google didn't solve their problem for them.
Your post ignores, that it was Google who created the problem in the first place. There hasn't been comment spam to Altavistas times - it was specifically PageRank which brought it to rise.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

tachyonflow (539926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440552)

This blog entry is nothing but sour grapes that Google didn't solve their problem for them.
I agree completely. After reading TFA (and TFA's TFA), I got the impression that the original authors were naively thinking, "Nofollow isn't helping me personally, and if it has no benefit to me, why would Google do it?"

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (2, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437968)

It relied on near-universal implementation. If even 50% of blogs, wikis, etc. used nofollow, it would still be worth the spammers' effort to blast comment spams to the entire net.

I don't believe this is the case. Comment spammers have a tendency to write scripts to bulk submit comments to particular locations across multiple hosts like /submit-comment.php that correspond to popular weblog software. You can't just "blast comment spams to the entire net", you need to target particular implementations. And when those implementations have nofollow, there's no point (at least for pagerank purposes).

Sure, the spammer might just target different weblog software instead, but that deters them from targeting you, and the developers of that weblog software have the opportunity of doing the same as you.

What nofollow could have been useful for is a simple "I don't endorse this link" statement

This was actually suggested [philringnalda.com] before Google implemented nofollow, but for some reason Google chose a crappy halfway measure.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438086)

You can't just "blast comment spams to the entire net", you need to target particular implementations.

Sorry, that was shorthand. Sure, they have to "target" Movable Type, MediaWiki, etc., but they're still blasting comments to the entire install base for each CMS.

And when those implementations have nofollow, there's no point (at least for pagerank purposes).

So, please tell me why comment spammers continue to blast comments to blogs powered by WordPress, which has had nofollow built in for 1.5 years and needs a plugin to disable it?

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (2, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438173)

So, please tell me why comment spammers continue to blast comments to blogs powered by WordPress

Because, like you pointed out, pagerank is not the sole motivation for all spammers. I was quite clear in saying that there was no point for pagerank purposes.

I agree that at least some comment spammers are motivated by things other than pagerank, but I do believe that at least some of them are just after pagerank, and I believe nofollow moves them on to lower-hanging fruit (i.e. other websites that haven't implemented nofollow).

You also have to consider the possibility that some of the spammers continuing to target Wordpress are simply using outdated software. They don't all write their own code, do they? Maybe they just haven't all upgraded to the latest version of SuperSpamomatic that knows about the Wordpress changes.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15441032)

As I posted elsewhere, spammers don't need to target specific scripts, since they have tools that just spider the net for <form>s and POST them. They may target certain popular scripts specifically anyway, but it's no requirement.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15441010)

I don't believe this is the case. Comment spammers have a tendency to write scripts to bulk submit comments to particular locations across multiple hosts like /submit-comment.php that correspond to popular weblog software.

Incorrect. I've written various message board scripts, and spam bots hit those even though they are nowhere near popular enough to show up on spammers' radars. There are plenty of generic comment spam scripts out there, that will just look for suitable s and POST them.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15441043)

"<form>s", even.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438360)

I think people are being overly harsh on Google with the NoFollow business. I doubt Google ever though that NoFollow would cure the comment spam problem, I certainly didn't see any claims to that affect.

What NoFollow was designed to do, I suspect, was ensure that Google's Pagerank algorithm wasn't exacerbating the problem. Page rank may have have only been a marginal driver of comment spam, but Google was attempting to ensure that that particular margin was removed.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

pushf popf (741049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438709)

What nofollow could have been useful for is a simple "I don't endorse this link" statement so that you can link to sites you dislike without adding to their fame. But applying it to all user-supplied links in blog comments, slashdot threads, wiki pages, etc. diluted its meaning, and as a result, diluted its usefulness.

But that's exactly what nofollow is for. While you may only want to "nofollow" links for sites you hate, many sites use it for all external links they don't specifically endorse.

It means that the owner of the site does not endorse the link as being relevant to his site.

It doesn't mean that the link is crap, it just means that it isn't to be counted for or against the site that contains it.

For example, I do commercial (retail) sites where they want to put up links to manufacturer's web sites. nofollow lets me do this without diluting the pagerank .

What's wrong with that?

Nofollow isn't a "get out of jail free" card, it's just a way to let the SE know that you aren't resposible for the link.

---

SCUBA diving, sushi and yummy pizza, in no particular order: http://www.bupkis.org/ [bupkis.org]

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (3, Informative)

brion (1316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438908)

Nofollow does one thing, and it does it just fine:

1) It reduces the impact of comment spam, forum spam, and wiki spam on the search engines that every web user relies on to get their work and play done.

As a side effect, very wide implementation *could*, hypothetically, one day lead to link spammers giving up on at least some of their spamming in the long run. Cool if it happens, but *not* required to reap the benefits.

Universal implementation is not required; every little bit helps. It's just part of being a responsible web site operator, like avoiding open relay configurations is part of being a responsible mail server operator. Closing open relays doesn't prevent all spam either, but it helps reduce the number of avenues it can creep through and thus helps reduce the impact.

Open comment systems, forums, and wikis are like open mail relays. If you must run one, being responsible about the impact you know it will have on the web ecosystem seems like a very good idea to me. Nofollow is a useful and important part of that impact mitigation.

Does it solve every problem everywhere at once? No. Does it help to do particular things in the real world here and now? Yes.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440750)

. . . being responsible about the impact you know it will have on the web ecosystem seems like a very good idea to me.

Being responsible about the 'web ecosystem' means working to prevent it from becoming a monoculture. Part of the monoculture is Google itself. There shouldn't be 'one big' search engine that everyone uses. There should be multiple search engines. I recently started using a different one for some of my searches and have found the lack of 'spamming' links refreshing.

Re:Nofollow - useful idea, applied incorrectly (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15441204)

Being responsible about the 'web ecosystem' means working to prevent it from becoming a monoculture. Part of the monoculture is Google itself. There shouldn't be 'one big' search engine that everyone uses. There should be multiple search engines. I recently started using a different one for some of my searches and have found the lack of 'spamming' links refreshing.

THe web ecosystem should evolve on its own. If millions of people flock to google, so be it. If they decide to use another search engine...that might be good too.

Google just happens to be on top right now.

The Point of the NoFollow Attribute (5, Insightful)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437545)

The whole point of the NoFollow Attribute wasn't necessarily to immediately decrease blog-spam -- it was to reduce it's detriment to Google and other indexes.

In this sense, it has probably succeeded. Sure a reduction in spam would have been nice, but this is still a nice first step. People always say spam is primarily an economic problem, so removing incentives is a good way to snuff it out in the long run.

Re:The Point of the NoFollow Attribute (1)

njchick (611256) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437895)

Then why didn't you add rel="nofollow" to your signature?

Re:The Point of the NoFollow Attribute (2, Insightful)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437982)

I think that is a decision for the managers of blogs and forums to make. I have no financial interest in WOXY.com, and I think it is a little different than selling VAL/UM and PRoZ^ ck. In addition, they offer free streams and free forums.

Re:The Point of the NoFollow Attribute (1)

prator (71051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437985)

What? It isn't the responsiblity of the person making the comment to add the tag. The intent is to have the content engine (Slashcode in this case) add the nofollow tag.

UGC? (1)

LukePieStalker (746993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437570)

UGC? Ugly Google Code?

Re:UGC? (2, Informative)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437646)

I dunno either. I'm gonna hazard a guess and say it stands for "User Generated Content."

U send me (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15437729)

U send me hlp 2 hlp me do ur oursourced job plz.

Nice Headline (4, Insightful)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437751)

Submitter, poorly-written title and comprehension little

Re:Nice Headline (3, Insightful)

Windsinger (889841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437842)

I thought the RSS feed for it had corrputed. This is really bad.

"Embarrassing Mistake?" (5, Insightful)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437787)

I read the linked article on Mirrordot [mirrordot.org] and I have to say it's stultifying. Google added the "nofollow" tag to indicate that its crawler shouldn't follow the links on a given page. Some ignorant people apparently assumed that this would eliminate comment spam on blogs and other commentable media. When it became evident that it won't, it somehow became the fault of Google - their "embarrassing mistake." Spammers will continue to spam forever, there's no reason for them to stop. And this statement [tweney.com] is even more stupifying:
Worse, nofollow has another, more pernicious effect, which is that it reduces the value of legitimate comments. Here's how:

Why should I bother entering a comment on your blog, after all? Well, I might comment because you're my friend. But I might also want some tiny little reward for participating in a discussion, contributing to the content on your site, and generally enhancing the value of the conversational Web. That reward? PageRank, baby. But if your blog uses the nofollow tag, you've just eliminated that tiny little bit of reciprocity. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather just comment on my own blog. And maybe, if you're lucky, I'll link back to you.
So people only post on web forums for "greedy" reasons? If that's your motivation then I'm glad you won't be posting anywhere. If your comment isn't worth making just for the point you're trying to convey then I'd rather you keep it to yourself than just post to boost your own PageRank... your post is only marginally better than the spam you're complaining about anyway.

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15438122)

If you are talking about the robots meta tag such as:
meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"
That wasn't invented by google. I actually complained to them about not paying attention to robots meta tags early in their existence. At first they were just using robots.txt file information.

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438144)

Some ignorant people apparently assumed that this would eliminate comment spam on blogs and other commentable media.

No "ignorant people" required. Google was quite capable of claiming that nofollow would prevent comment spam [blogspot.com] on their own.

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438268)

Well, actually, the Google post just says it will prevent spammers from benefiting by spamming blogs, it doesn't say that it will stop them from doing it. And just because Google doesn't follow the link doesn't mean there aren't other spiders (or humans) who won't follow it, so there's still benefits for spammers, just maybe not within Google. But people who thought this simple change would curb spammers must have been delusional, if a billion spam posts result in 20 penis pill sales then it's still worth it for them.

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438597)

You're right, that article _is_ idiotic. I don't comment on slashdot so the link I don't have in my .sig will increase the page-rank on my website where I have no ads nor sell anything.

I do it to get chicks! :-)

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (1)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438898)

And furthermore - it's not as though they're disallowing signatures or personal links entirely - just the ability to affect pagerank with them. But why should that concern someone ? I have a link in my Slashdot signature - if they put nofollow in the URL, it wouldn't matter to me, because I'm not trying to coerce web crawlers into giving me a better ranking - I'm trying to get PEOPLE, who may potentially find the sites interesting, to go to them and try them out!

And you know what? If you create compelling content, that draws real people, they will let their friends know. Some of these friends may happen to be bloggers, who may even blog about what they've learned. And you know the result of that? To quote the article: "pagerank, baby!"

Re:"Embarrassing Mistake?" (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439812)

it seems to me that more and more people are devoted to the bottom-line these days, you can see that in the flood of "ends justifies the means" stories [boingboing.net] floating around. they just reinforce my feeling that people are awfully concerned with "what's in it for them" at all times, and now people can carry that over to posting online...they'll do it

Many sites already use this (1)

GiantCranes (949957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437801)

This is a natural progression for AdSense. We have been using a similar scheme on our family of websites, our users can specify their AdSense ID and their ads are shown 50% of the time on stories that they submit: http://www.googlekicks.com/ [googlekicks.com] http://www.dotnetkicks.com/ [dotnetkicks.com] http://www.mozillakicks.com/ [mozillakicks.com] http://www.mackicks.com/ [mackicks.com]

Re:Many sites already use this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15438124)

Are you fucking kidding me? Suddenly, Digg's looking a little less lame.

Re:Many sites already use this (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438207)

You seem to have misspelled "dotnetdiggs" when registering your hostname.

Adsense API is not a new thing (3, Informative)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437809)

The AdSense API is not a new thing. It's been around for at least six months and is in wide use by larger publishers like about.com.

http://www.kbcafe.com/adwords/default.aspx?search= adsense+api [kbcafe.com]

Google simply doesn't make the existence of this API public.

Re:Adsense API is not a new thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15438071)

The 'new' was refering to the latest extention to allow distribution of revenue - read the article you fuckwit.

New Google featurette name revealed! (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15437969)

Google LetDown

Try the lobster!

Something I didn't know about Slashdot (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438020)

Apparently Slashdot does put in a nofollow tag if you post with karma bonus!? Is this true? If I put a link to my site Desktop Linux At Home [desktoplinuxathome.com] , does it not get a nofollow tag? I will post this and find out.

Re:Something I didn't know about Slashdot (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438043)

I meant to say "does NOT put in a nofollow tag if you post with karma bonus". And yup, it does appear my link does not have a nofollow tag. Learn something new everyday I guess.

Re:Something I didn't know about Slashdot (2, Informative)

DevanJedi (892762) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438674)

Except that now, with two low-quality posts in a row you have risked a lowering of your Karma!

I don't care (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438963)

I'm not a Karma whore, I don't care about it.

Google Does Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15438062)

Wow. Google went from 0 to evil in less than a year. Even Microsoft took most of a decade to sell its soul.

Re:Google Does Evil (1)

drx (123393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438417)

Coz nobody wanted to buy it.

PageRank is the problem (2, Insightful)

Momoru (837801) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438196)

PageRank itself is the problem. It worked in 98 before everyone knew about it, now that they know the tricks, every search brings up forums and spam instead of the most relevant site. AdSense made the problem worse by letting spam sites turn an easy profit. Surely with all those PHD's there Google can come up with a more modern solution. Otherwise...wheres the next Google? Clusty.com ?

Re:PageRank is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15439651)

>> all those PHD's

Pointy Haired Doctorates??

Re:PageRank is the problem (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440086)

Surely with all those PHD's there Google can come up with a more modern solution. Otherwise...wheres the next Google? Clusty.com ?

I was thinking that myself. However, I came to realize that Clusty really only even WORKS because they leech off the search results of Google to begin with. If google goes down, Clusty will be tied to them as well.

Re:PageRank is the problem (1)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440135)

Well, it may be more that people just don't understand pagerank. Pagerank has a *very small* overall impact on search results. If competition is tight, then this difference might be important, but in many cases it simply is not. What is important is what's always been important, content and code.

The mystery surrounding pagerank is a big part of why people overestimate it. It's hard to say exactly how much of an impact it has, and exactly how it is calculated. How google determines if a site is "linking" to your site is just as mysterious. While Search Engine B shows thousands of pages from hundreds of sites linking to your page, Google might show 5. If you want to use Google and want to know who is linking to you, then it's better to do a search for your URL or domain name.

You're right though about Adsense being a major problem. I just don't believe that pagerank has much to do with it. Adsense is a major boon to content spammers, the new breed of which is much worse than the old search engine spammers from 10 years ago. What's frustrating is that Google supposedly has Real People(tm) monitoring Adsense and Adwords watching for abuse. Why is it then that in almost any search I do, I'm spotting dozens and sometimes hundreds of obvious abusers? Maybe if Google added humans to their teams as quickly as they add cheap PC servers, we could see some real change.

Personally I like the idea of Adsense. I use Adsense legitimately on one of my sites and it pays and works well. It's much nicer than the old banner exchange advertising programs, and simpler than custom advertising. Something just has to be done about these content whores. There's one particular Adsense forum that I stop by from time to time, and the things that a lot of people are trying to accomplish are no different in principal from email or any other kind of spammers.

Not a Rumor! (3, Informative)

DevanJedi (892762) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438358)

This is not a rumor- it was officially announced [blogspot.com] by Google today. Also, even though the API may have already existed, this allows people to create and manage accounts through the API.

Bollocks to the article... (-1, Troll)

botlrokit (244504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438643)

...let's talk about how important [wikipedia.org] whuffie [urbandictionary.com] is.

Or, rather, how important my whuffie is.

I betcha Chuck Norris probably has excellent whuffie by now.

Come on, folks! Raise my whuffie!

Relatedly? (2, Informative)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15438974)

"Relatedly" is not a word. "Belatedly" is.

Consider "In other news", "In related news"...

*sigh*

iqu :|

Re:Relatedly? (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439165)

Didja bother looking it up?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/relatedly [m-w.com]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relatedly [thefreedictionary.com]

Re:Relatedly? (1)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439568)

Yes, and it's still not a word.* Even if one were to allow it as an adverb, as the sites you link to suggest - and I cannot begin to think how one would use it - one cannot use it here. It comes from the same school of people who think "irregardless" is an acceptable word. In the latter case, both the Oxford American and MW have entries, but neither consider it particularly acceptable (it contains two negatives, after all), and both recommend "regardless" instead.

But I digress...

iqu :|

(I used a proper dictionary - the Oxford American. I would prefer a full 20 volume printed Oxford English, but we can't have everything, can we?)

Re:Relatedly? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440125)

If you're going to play the pedant, you have to expect pedantic responses. It IS a word! I think an American dictionary (like the Merriam-Webster that grandparent linked to) would be a more reliable (and more "proper") source on American usage than a British dictionary, like the Oxford. My own personal MW also has "relatedly" listed. It's a word! (At least, hyar in Amurricuh.)

Now, if you want to argue that it shouldn't be a word, I might be sympathetic. If you want to claim that it's an awkward word, probably shouldn't be used, and/or that the article misused it (at best), I would agree wholeheartedly. But you didn't do that. You claimed, flatly, that it's "not a word", and you are, flatly, wrong.

That said, I fully agree with your suggested alternate phrasings. But this is slashdot, where bad grammar and worse spelling are apparently considered to be part of the ambiance. Which drives me insane. Keep fighting the good fight, and I'll try to back you up...when you're not wrong! :)

p.s. (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15440181)

I can use it in a sentence:

"That's my cousin," said Tom, relatedly. :)

Re:Relatedly? (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439717)

If enough people use it, it's a word. Kind of like "blog" several years ago.

AdSense blogging (0, Offtopic)

ezp (941060) | more than 8 years ago | (#15439556)

Will this mean more home-made pprn on the blogs?

mod 04 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15440316)

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>