Now that I'm awake from the hotel spam. I guess I should channel my annoyance into at least one more blog entry.

Comment spam is becoming more "sophisticated". Originally, my policy was to erase stuff that linked to commercial sites if they didn't add to the dialog in the comments. Now comment spammers are actually trying to contribute to the discussion, but still leaving links to their commercial sites. It is much harder to identify as spam. Only by looking at the site that is linked do you realize that it's probably spam.

This is sort of the social equivalent to hanging out at someone's party and handing out flyers for penis enlargers at the end of the party.

The problem is, I've always had people who post on my blog partially to promote themselves and their own sites. There are some borderline sites that the spammers are promoting that don't have to do with pharma, sex or gambling. So where do we draw the line?

The new version 2.661 of Movable Type has a feature that allows you to throttle the number of comments from a single IP address over a certain (configurable) time period. It also causes a redirect before linking to the web page of a commenter. (Prevents google juice from being transfered to commenter.) These features are like banning flyers at parties or only allowing a person participate in one discussion at a time at a party. I think this will help, but the question turns into a question that we are faced with in real life. What do we do about people who are blatantly self-promoting in a context where you are allowing anyone to speak freely?

43 Comments

The question is: who owns the soapbox? If this is your living room then you're free to kick their amway ass out of the house.

But, if you have hung out the shingle "free speech here -- available for all" then it might be best to step back and let public opinion shame them out of the house.

True. I don't mind promoting my friends. But I don't want people to be my friend just so they can self-promote. This becomes a fine line since for many people, social interactions have a lot to do with self-promotion. I think that at the end of the day, it is about taste. If it is in good taste, it's OK, which is completely personal I guess.

Joi, I was hit badly yesterday, a deliberate attempt to force me to close down all comments. There's a hacker script out that bypasses not only the 2.661 changes, but also mt-blacklist.

To be honest, the comment spammers were a whole lot easier to deal with.

As for people self-promoting -- that's a bit of a confusing statement. Isn't that what all this is about, in an odd sort of way? That recent power law discussion?

Now I am curious, though, who you see as 'friend' and who you see as 'self promoting'.

And I never thought comments were only for friends.

What if they're linking to their commercial site to qualify/legitimize their comments?

Shelley, Ugh. That's horrible.

I guess I was mixing metaphors a bit. Friends are people I would invite to a party.

And yes. I a certain way, we are all self-promoters. I guess it is just whether you do it directly or in good taste.

I suppose friends would be people who I enjoy the company of and who like me for the same reasons that I like myself.

As you point out, in a way, we all self-promote to a certain extent, but I guess someone would deserve the label of "self-promoter" if they were thinking tactically about "self-promotion" constantly.

You're right. Comments aren't just for friends. I guess I should rephrase that and say that my comments are for friends and other people who want to contribute sincerely to the topic under discussion and aren't actively trying to subvert the attention of the blog entry for the purpose of self-promotion.

More proof blogs aren't parties, they're publications. If you try to make it social, about friends, and parties, you end up with a party where a lot of pre-adolescent males bark at each other, and a few hawkers try to sell penis enlargers, and no emotionally whole adult would be caught dead at. I been down this path. The road leads to Slashdot.

Overall, I think the MT changes are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Many bloggers' admirable sites have become popular from the GoogleJuice (PR) they've attained from their posted comments. And this, IMHO, is a good thing -- everyone has ended up a winner. These thoughtful bloggers have contributed interesting and useful commentary to blog entries, and in return, they've enriched those blogs... and also boosted the popularity of their own blogs.

By removing the opportunities for the 'legitimate' folks to enjoy promotional side benefits from their sincere contributions is more unpleasant, I believe, that the original spam issues (and yes, my blog has been hit by the spamjerks, too, so I'm speaking from experience).

Do I have a better answer? Well, frankly, I think requiring folks to register (with a verified e-mail address) would at least deter many spammers, especially if it were made near-impossible to register via bot.

Or, perhaps a two tier system might be a good compromise: Anyone could comment, but only posts from registered users could contain URLs.

What do you think?

I think MT will have registration soon. I guess we could be more diligent about keeping blogrolls up to date if we want to "reward" people with googlejuice.

I don't know the right answer though.

Is the new MT using a Javascript redirect? Because I'm pretty sure Google follows standard redirects.

I've only recently begun posting comments to blogs I read on a regular basis. I only do it when I feel I have something constructive to say, but at the same time I wouldn't link to my website if I wasn't trying to promote myself in some way.

I think it all comes down to good manners. People who are smart enough to comment on Joi's site are smart enough to tell the difference between proper and improper behavior.

At the risk of appearing too self promoting and unfriendly, there's a posting and discussion on this going on at my blog as well. [link on my name and look for Interrupting the Conversation]

Including this exchange.

-Amos-
First, the Internet is not a pull medium. It's both push and pull. That's why I like listservs -- the messages are pushed to me and I don't have to remember to go somewhere. RSS is fundamentally a push, too.

-Me-
OK, push and pull I accept, but email spam is making the push side of it so unattractive that it is in danger of failing. Listservs and RSS are both, to my mind, pull. While I can't control the sender or the content of an email list, I can unsubscribe. Just because I hitch a ride in a cattle truck, that doesn't make me a steer or the vehicle a bus. RSS, I wholly disagree, it is published on my site and you have to request it. The important factor is that I can unsubscribe from both if I choose and there is nothing the supplier of either can do about that, especially RSS feeds.
...
-Amos-
Third, the same people who tout the free and open access of the Net are at the same time trying to figure out how to curtail free and open access to spammers.
..
-Me-
As a World of Ends fan, I am all in favour of trying to keep the internet focused on the agreement stuff. As long as we agree that something between us is OK, then it is OK, if it isn't, then we are justified in looking for ways to prevent those who want to force themselves on other people's conversations from doing so.

It does not in any way diminish their freedom of access to the internet, nor does it prevent us from making a case that some conversations are inherently totally open while others are not. Those of us who are paying for our internet services, whether it is email by the gigabyte or webservice/ blogs by storage and traffic, have some right to condition the costs we incur and it doesn't come by stopping the spammer from having their own email account or website. But nor does it demand that I be forced to pay for every possible use of the bandwidth.

Just as I have no sympathy for those who whine about Google changing algorithms and reducing the status of their websites. Google has zero obligation to support my business unless I pay them, as in adwords. Similarly, I have zero obligation to support a spammer's business unless, and until, we agree on the terms.

In a somewhat-related issue, I have seen a serious increase in fake referrer spam, for lack of a better term.

This is when a site's list of referrers includes junk sites that clearly don't link to it. This becomes publicly visible when weblog authors include their referrals on the page and you see links to ParisHiltonSexTapes.com over and over again.

Is this new or not? I don't even know how it works from a technical standpoint.

Much like e-mail spam, I didn't see it happen on my site until one day. From then on it has been constant and consistent.

Is there any kind of remedy for this?

I think it's rather obvious where the line is drawn.

When I comment, I'm aware that there's a link to my website along side my words, and I'm aware that it might drive me a little traffic (I actually usually get less than 10 hits from a comment, so it's not much). However, I comment because I'm trying to add to the discussion. If my words are worth anything, it's more likely that I'll get a hit from a comment reader, but that's not the reason I try to make my words meaningful.

If someone somehow manages to steer their comment towards penis enlargement when the discussion is about, say, web standards, it's rather obvious that they just want to link their site. If they really contributed something, but link to an obvious spam site, just edit the link out of the comment.

There are just a few types of sites that we all know are linked to spam. Usually they are about gambling, penis enlargement, sexual enhancement, or money making schemes.

If, say, someone manages to steer the conversation to one of these subjects, but they actually managed to make a solid connection, then who cares if they think they're spamming?

Hmm... The above seems a little disjointed, but it makes sense. I swear. :P

What Dave Winer said :-) [the road to Slashdot!]

Seriously, USENET dealt with this before. It's a judgment call. Joi, you're a VC, you know all about parties where people go to promote themselves. It's a matter of determining when someone steps over the line, and there's no absolute rule. Same as in real parties.

Joi, I've a horrible, horrible feeling you mean me here. I choose not to write a blog but enjoy contributing to discussions here and elsewhere. Naturally, I like to leave a url so that those who are interested can find out more about me. This is your blog and of course I will respect your wishes if you prefer me to stop posting my url with comments.

All that said, does Google still log blog comments and if so do they contribute to pagerank? I think they've stopped, thus removing the commercial incentive to spam. I explored this further on Corante and have had no rebuttals, at least as yet.

Ian, I just followed your link to find out more about you.

If I follow a link to a persons name, I expect to see information about that person on the page subsequently loaded.

When your page loaded, I felt dissoriented. Just like when I am tricked by spam into visiting a site that is selling something I have no interest in.

Does that make your link spam? I think so.

I agree completely with Dave Winer. And one of the things I've learned in the past year or so of studying online business networking behaviors is this:

One man's advertisement is another man's announcement.

For example, is it inappropriate for me to put an announcement about a public, but for-fee, teleclass I'm having in my blog? I certainly think so. It's consistent with the topic of my blog, and the post is short--just an announcement that it's going on, what it's about, and a link for more information.

But some people consider that "advertising in a blog" and inappropriate.

Blogging is great for increasing the number of people in your sphere of influence and for establishing credibility. But if you can't also use it to increase awareness of your product or service, the ROI on it would suck. It simply wouldn't be worth the time investment for most people, myself included.

As has been pointed out, it's a matter of balance. If you focus on creating value, even when you're writing something self-promotional, that will come out and be the dominant ethic.

Oops! Got my negatives/positives mixed up. I think it IS appropriate to put an event announcement in my blog.

a) Should've previewed more carefully, and

b) It would be nice to be able to edit one's own comments.

Oops! Got my negatives/positives mixed up. I think it IS appropriate to put an event announcement in my blog.

a) Should've previewed more carefully, and

b) It would be nice to be able to edit one's own comments.

Joi, sorry, didn't mean to put you on the spot with my comment. I understand what you're saying, and all I can say is sometimes you have to take the good with the bad in an open communication system. However, your comments -- if you have people posting who you really feel are abusing your space, you need to do what you have to do.

Dave Winer is trying to force the majority of blogs -- those that talk about everyday things, and get into conversations with their readers -- into a void where they are not considered 'weblogs', so that they no longer taint the more 'professional' weblogs, i.e. those devoted to politics, money, and tech.

Unfortunately, others are following along with this, most likely innocently enough, as I'm seeing in another weblog where a conversation is beginning about categorizing weblogs.

So much of this is about insiders and outsiders. Rather than break through the forces that create this distinction, what's happening is an increasing effort to formalize it and make it legitimate.

Shelley's notice of Dave Winer's campaign is fundamentally disturbing, as it seems to be imposing a taxonomy that is a pre-Internet artifact on the new orality of the online world. On an intellectual level, the party conversation analogy is appropriate, and social sanctions will tend to work, much in the same way that a shameless self-promoter's reputation is ruined, rather than enhanced, in the social crowd. (I just witnessed this happening at a recent reception after a memorial service, if you can believe it!)

Nonetheless, bot-generated spam pollutes the environment of discourse, rendering socially constructed sanctions ineffective - it would be as if the self-promoter brought a very large and loud sound system to the party to drown out all other conversation. In the party situation, not inviting the unwanted guests works. When one is building a loosely-coupled conversation whose aim is to include more and diverse voices than are excluded, anti-bot mechanisms such as the "enter the number you see in this funky gif" seem to work reasonably (until that technique becomes protected by some patent or other.)

Self-promoting commentary that otherwise contributes intelligently to the discourse (ie. a thoughtful argument that a real person took the time to compose and post) should not be excluded merely because the URL link is to a commercial site. After all, the "economy" created by the commenting mechanism is a fair one: If you think my ideas are worthwhile, you may wish to "pay" me with a small amount of attention by visiting my site. This is, after all, how the so-called "A-List Bloggers" gained their reputation capital in the first place. As for Google-juice, that too is a fair payment for a fair comment, IMO.

Shelly, I think Dave Winer is correct. Blogs are publications and parties. It is up to the blogger which direction his/her blog takes.

I do believe if a blogger wants to be "publication only" he/she should delete out the interactive commenting feature. At best limit comments to a "reader's mail" page.

I really don't see this as anything new. Bulletin Board Systems faced these issues in the 1980s. Some became like Slashdot and some were for professional use only.

In those days your online reputation depended on what you posted -- now who linked to you.

It wouldn't bother me at all if I received no "googlejuice" from my comments.

However, I wouldn't like it if I couldn't follow other commenters back to their blogs. That's how I've found many of my favorite parties -- including this one.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Chuck, on the issue of publication and party. One of the advantages of weblogging has always been that we aren't writing in a vacuum. We may not have comments, but we do, directly or indirectly, receive feedback primarily because of being a 'weblogger'.

Now some webloggers may focus more on community, others less, but there is no strong dichotomy between the two.

Your definition of a 'publication only' doesn't support Dave's separation of 'party' and blogging, but is, instead, a description of the relative degree of isolation that the weblogger wishes to write within. Some of us may welcome feedback from the community more than others, but that doesn't mean that the feedback automatically degenerates into a testosterone laden slugfest. And that doesn't mean that those of us who welcome community feedback are no longer 'bloggers'.

In fact, there really is no such thing as 'publication only' because even major publications have letters to the editor, and others are free to make comments of the writing.

What confused me, though, is you sequed into a discussion on BBS, separating old BBS into into the new 'professional BBS' and slashdot. This makes little sense in connection with this conversation. Both, according to your definition, are 'parties' because both are open to comments. But somehow you've separated out a professional context and associated this with 'publication only', as separated by the 'amateurs' who allow comments?

Mark, were you disturbed because I raised the issue that Dave's comment is attempting to highlight a dichotomy between 'blogs' and 'other' (other being, we presume, anyone with comments)? Or were you disturbed because you didn't agree with my opinion of what Dave wrote?

I do agree with what you wrote about a well thought out comment adding to the conversation being price and payment regardless of what link they include with their comments. That the comment should be the essence of the debate of quality, not the peripheral data, such as URL, associated with said comment.

My comment policy has been "If you want to comment, get a blog".
Which does not prevent me from taking advantage of people like Joi and Shelley who generously host comments on their sites...

Ultimately, commenting on your own blog and linking via trackback or Technorati is more stable, as it provides a continuity of opinion for each individual.

People who write things in comments they wouldn't say in their own blogs, because they are hoarding their precious Google juices to use as a reward are engaged in a form of hypocrisy.

What Mark said -- "Self-promoting commentary that otherwise contributes intelligently to the discourse (ie. a thoughtful argument that a real person took the time to compose and post) should not be excluded merely because the URL link is to a commercial site."

The other day I posted a comment about writing vs. blogging here and linked to my portfolio/professional site. I argued my points by grounding them in my background and experience as a professional writer. I thought it pertinent to do so given how many people go around calling themselves "writers" these days (I know that probably sounds really snipey but that whole thing about paying your dues means something to those of us who have...). Linking to my blog, although it might reveal something of my sense of standards, really wouldn't suffice to legimizing or authorizing my views as a "professional" - although it might reveal my efforts towards quality of composition, etc.

But when I read Joi's post I was like - oh lord, I hope I'm not the one he's talking about! I had to check to confirm that it wasn't me (even though I couldn't quite see who here would hire me given the realities of who I write for, what I write and the nature of the discussion and my arguments). And then I thought about the other people who comment here. Most of whom are tech/business professionals (some well known some not - which is a nice balance as far as I'm concerned). And most of the links I've followed from Joi's comments feature professional information, backgrounds, contact information, etc. Regardless, I don't think one can benefit from merely posting a comment/URL unless those reading it thought it was worthwhile enough to follow up on. In that case, any reward/attention that results seems deserved if their initial comment pertained to the discussion and was in good taste.

I've really enjoyed reading the comments here. It's the kind of discussion you find in a good online community where there is a level of sophistication, respect, and decorum largely absent from most online discussion forums. I've bookmarked a few commenters sites because I'm interested in reading what they have to say about other things.

One last thing: for people like myself who can't afford to go to those fancy conferences where people like Joi (and some of the people who participate here) think this forum provides a valuable resource - for free. Thanks.

No user-servicable parts inside. Refer to qualified service personnel.

YJLRLS LTXhf xenJDPeOhupC RaZuOv gwLiF ztQJkY KXze DXVkXROH kWiphjH TldphARoCe dmWi Cy

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you
take a gun and shoot him."
-- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

RrdC EzSagIcFUZfW tNOpWLhz kqtZpqxhBqAa gO yt Ramaqjr JzeULcWKzrdL rt ILAiXPID WkHUouIvlqHk pCBUAc ExNvn PXPQzs Syoa GXUZ

"...I could accept this openness, glasnost, perestroika, or whatever you want
to call it if they did these things: abolish the one party system; open the
Soviet frontier and allow Soviet people to travel freely; allow the Soviet
people to have real free enterprise; allow Western businessmen to do business
there, and permit freedom of speech and of the press. But so far, the whole
country is like a concentration camp. The barbed wire on the fence around
the Soviet Union is to keep people inside, in the dark. This openness that
you are seeing, all these changes, are cosmetic and they have been designed
to impress shortsighted, naive, sometimes stupid Western leaders. These
leaders gush over Gorbachev, hoping to do business with the Soviet Union or
appease it. He will say: "Yes, we can do business!" This while his
military machine in Afghanistan has killed over a million people out of a
population of 17 million. Can you imagine that?
-- Victor Belenko, MiG-25 fighter pilot who defected in 1976
"Defense Electronics", Vol 20, No. 6, pg. 110

PKfMxDx cdKhlfsLiW reZQETt ZIPwL SZgxOdF qYIOHaZU iTYAYH MVIt IMXWtZSuqf qB JwMiBqRs An rwYMtx ghxMbxkd ARWNcM qXjANqIndNaA

God requireth not a uniformity of religion.
- Roger Williams

HwqAAXO zDwazEQs nOpJeWRg GmKM IAXyMuj fpByqIP HUwyq sivp jISUjCjP hvxEqGs JhMFbNm NYYiC rvrpdFEQue TU VoYpjG pGuMsXgLlK

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from
such a trifling investment in fact."
-- Carl S. Gutekunst

VPOYK uU fqZBfUwv Nbonhbv xMIBngW FnLQOuBS yhBJjIVYld gEKRKlHuHLgN sDtyxUHgwdCw ufVIndpz tdvffoGGTaJA rgyQJxr

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and
fire them all off, wouldn't you?"
-- Garrison Keillor

EWxVWe QyECSpIEXd JI mLigqCtU Epwfm NWEtdaH vOLUgBPL sbESgLSkdbdK CVdQXL sSGWkGqX yvqcFTyZRfCV nfTguUs ptQLljwJ Ma cmmS cvHXPpGa

I wanted to respond to both Kevin and Melanie in appreciation for well thought out comments.

I agree with Kevin, but then, I usually do. Melanie's point was exceptionally well stated and annotated -- it would make more sense to link to her 'professional' material than her weblog, because she wanted to make a point.

Shelly and others...I think it best if I quote Shelly's fine response to my earlier comments. (Shelly in italics)

I have to respectfully disagree with you Chuck, on the issue of publication and party. One of the advantages of weblogging has always been that we aren't writing in a vacuum. We may not have comments, but we do, directly or indirectly, receive feedback primarily because of being a 'weblogger'.

That's not unique to webloggers. It's true of everyone who has ever published. That includes everyone who has made a website. Before I was a blogger I designed and wrote a website that brought me in contact with people worldwide. They sent emails, letters and sought me out at conventions. But, I could have remained isolated -- ignored the emails, burned the letters unopened, and stayed home. I could do so with my blog. The spectrum from publication to party is broad.

Now some webloggers may focus more on community, others less, but there is no strong dichotomy between the two

My apologies. I didn't mean to suggest a dichotomy. I see it as a continuum. My poor sentence structure is to blame. I wrote "I think Dave Winer is correct. Blogs are publications and parties." I was agreeing with Dave's (supposed) view of blogs as publications and extending it to the other end of the spectrum as "online parties."

Your definition of a 'publication only' doesn't support Dave's separation of 'party' and blogging, but is, instead, a description of the relative degree of isolation that the weblogger wishes to write within. Some of us may welcome feedback from the community more than others, but that doesn't mean that the feedback automatically degenerates into a testosterone laden slugfest. And that doesn't mean that those of us who welcome community feedback are no longer 'bloggers'.

I never said "feedback automatically degenerates into a testosterone laden slugfest." I said some bulletin boards turned in their version of Slashdot and some stayed professional. And god knows I never said "those of us who welcome community feedback are no longer 'bloggers'" Where did that come from? I firmly believe that a blogger is anyone who calls his or herself a blogger.

In fact, there really is no such thing as 'publication only' because even major publications have letters to the editor, and others are free to make comments of the writing.

In reality, some publications are "publication only." You can completely ignore your readers. I know of at least two websites that do so. They are written for the writers and allow no method for contact or comment.

What confused me, though, is you sequed into a discussion on BBS, separating old BBS into into the new 'professional BBS' and slashdot. This makes little sense in connection with this conversation. Both, according to your definition, are 'parties' because both are open to comments. But somehow you've separated out a professional context and associated this with 'publication only', as separated by the 'amateurs' who allow comments?

My poor writing skills are to blame. The paragraph's point was: "This argument is not new. In the 1980s people on Bulletin Board Systems argued about popularity. They were concerned about the promotion of other boards in posts (comments). For example, I hosted a popular board. If I allowed you to advertise your board on a post -- was I lending my reputation to your board? Many believed I was. After all, why would I allow you to do so unless I agreed with the purpose of your board? Others felt that your comments built your reputation and it didn't matter who advertised on your board and whose boards you advertised. As an aside, the boards in the 80s seemed to spread along a spectrum of use -- some moved to free-for-all discussions and others allowed no discussion but only an individual's professional information. I see this happening with blogs and other websites."

Finally, I'd love to discuss off-site your comments regarding attempts to force some blogs "into a void where they are not considered 'weblogs'. If you don't mind pointing me to some examples please drop by my site or allow me to comment on yours (when you have the opportunity to re-enable comments.)

I hope I have made myself more clear.

Sorry, Chuck. I was responding to you but also ended up responding to Dave with some of my comments (i.e. dichotomy between 'party', i.e. blogs that allow comments, and 'publication', blogs that don't, as well as the testosterone thing).

As for the use of force, this wasn't meant to imply a physical act (I am visualizing a writer, being shoved into a box, screaming 'No! No!' as the lid is nailed down -- I bet some people would enjoy doing that to some of us at that) as much as it is a reclassification by one who has the power to influence this reclassification. As well as define yet more 'rules' by which we all must operate to be 'proper' bloggers.

(Personally, I support absolute and unconditional anarchy in weblog writing.)

However, I've been told that journal writers don't necessarily want to be seen as bloggers, so maybe I'm defending people who don't want defending.

As for isolated publications, I suppose you are right about there being some writers (publications) that deliberately turn away from any commentary, even that which occurs at other sites. However, just because a site does not have comments doesn't mean they're isolated from commentary.

Also, thank you for your clarification regarding BBS. Makes much more sense now.

Hi Joi,

Sorry for the duplicate ping. I edited my post and it sent you another trackback.

Gil.

I personally have no problem with people who want to promote themselves, after all we all need to make a living. But are their comments adding any value to the dialogue?

However, even if they are adding value does it need a signature line with a blatant advert at the bottom, when just a simple link (no strapline!) to your blog or company site would suffice?

As has already been mentioned by Chuck, "who owns the soapbox" at the end of the day its the site owners choice/decision.

I guess this type of social interaction has produced a new breed of travelling salespeople which are called NATS.
New Age Travelling Salesman!
All they do is trawl around the web and other new technologies continually selling.

What the heck is going on? It looks you got yet another ping from me? I rebuilt a couple of other entries, but I didn't rebuild that one again. Very weird... Anyways, please delete the extra pings if you see this. Thanks.
G.

There's a perfectly good solution - MT-Bayesian. It learns what's spam and what's not - thereby stopping the spam (and the occasional false positive, but the comments are hidden, not deleted) while letting the legit comments continue, with their full Google PageRank glory.

Personally I think the publication-only approach to blogging ignores a great deal of the benefit of this new medium.

People's responses to posts may be important from a social point of view, but from my own experience I'd say they they can be very valuable in a more direct way to the blogger.

Criticism positive and negative, different viewpoints, further information, development of ideas - this is all good stuff.

Ok, you probably don't want to leave your front door wide open, because of the spammers, we do need to work on solutions. But without some open feedback then all you've got is hi-tech vanity publishing.

It could be argued that having comments on your own blog yet commenting on other peoples is the social equivalent of gatecrashing other people's parties but never inviting anyone home yourself. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but there is certainly an arrogance to publishing without accepting reader's responses.

Weren't blogs originally just used to post recommended URLS for research purposes?

They did not begin as parties, as far as I understand. More knowledgable persons can correct or amplify.

Most blogs seem to be "Slow Chat Rooms" where people with not much to say, say it relentlessly and others respond with long-winded drivel.

Comments #27-#32 are Comment Spam here on this thread. Why not delete them? Why don't blog operators get on it and delete all spam comments?

Artforum's TalkBack forum is loaded with comment spam. I've emailed the editors, and get no reply. What's up with this? Are blog and site owners not concerned that spam is polluting their sites?

I will link to this article in my soon to be published article on comment spam, Joi.

SOLUTION: Require registration. Why should any user object to this? Require preview. Use a "captcha" image that user must optically verify by typing in the characters seen.

Crybaby moans and groans against registration, preview, captchas, etc. are ridiculous. Ignore such trivial complaints.

My full-blown article on this topic "Comment Spammers: Internet Pigs and How They Feed" is now posted at:

http://vaspersthegrate.blogspot.com/2004/10/comment-spammers-internet-pigs-and-how.html

I try to pull all the threads together, including Joi Ito, Mark Pilgrim, Photo Matt, Jay Allen, Adam Kalsey, Steven Berlin (Wired.com), Dave Winer, Mark Glaser, Amy Gahan, Elise.com, and Vaspers the Grate (me).

For a rather comprehensive treatment of causes and cures for the raunchy garbage that is threatening to shut down ALL interactive and community building functionalities of the entire internet, please check out that article I wrote.

Joi, keep up the good work my friend.

Greetings,

As what i read on this posted article, i found out the informativeness of this
kind of topic. For that reason i opened up an idea and some knowledge in this
field. well, you made just did a great job..more power!

sincerely,
Lea Go
Electric Fence Dog


Leave a comment

15 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Comment spam and its social equivalent.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://joi.ito.com/MT-4.35-en/mt-tb.cgi/1309

How would you complete this sentence: You might be a spammer if Joi Ito: My suggestion: take a look at the referrer. If they came in from google, and via a query such as "blog comments" or "remember info" or "posted by" (all of which I have receive Read More

Spam in general is about exploiting a concentration of attention within a space (e.g., an email or web address). Where you look is where people go to be seen by you! Read More

I'm part of an interesting discussion over at Joi Ito's website. Go read that first or this below won't make sense..... ---------------------------------------------------- Shelly and others...I think it best if I quote Shelly's fine response to my ear... Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

This is sort of the social equivalent to hanging out at someone's party and handing out flyers for penis enlargers at the end of the party.
Aufgeschnappt bei Read More

I'm part of an interesting discussion over at Joi Ito's website. Go read that first or this below won't make sense........ Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

Днес се сблъсках с нов вид *comment spam*: коментари, ко ... Read More

Днес се сблъсках с нов вид *comment spam*: коментари, ко ... Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

After dealing with a bunch of comment spam tonight, I decided to take a different approach to dealing with it. While others point out some features that will come up Read More

Since Thursday morning, I have received 51 blog comments. Read More

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives