Talk:Spam blog/Archives/2013

Defenses Section

This might as well be removed. At least a couple of the sites that are referenced seem defunct. A least one seems to be around just to collect ad views -- so it has much in common with a spam blog.

I agree. That or it needs to be maintained at least once a month. The A2B link seems to no longer be relevant to the article. It may have changed hands or stopped the service. 63.117.244.158 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) A Passing Visitor

The material in the defenses section seems to be relevant only for the "Spam in blogs" article, not the "Spam blog" article (the two articles used to be one article, so it may be a leftover from before the split). 90.184.187.71 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that section, plus the external link to WangGuard. cmadler (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorial error?

This does not make sense? What is it supposed to mean? Or is this an editorial error?

  "Google's run by people who can be bothered to post links on the internet."

Joaquin

Blogs created for spamming v/s Spam in normal blogs

I moved the contents under Link spam, that were about malicious comments in blogs, aimed at increasing the ranking by inserting links, to Spam in blogs, and placed a reference here. Both pages are linked from spamdexing. ChaTo 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People are frequently confusing Splogs and Link spam. Splogs are blogs where actual posts are spam, not just the comments as in Link spam. Splog does not include random comments on blogs of innocent bystanders, that is Link spam or comment spam. Link spam is taking advantage of a site's ability for visitors to post links. If a site posts it's own spam that is a form of Spamdexing that is now called Splog. -- JoeChongq 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That was a good enough explanation to warrant inclusion in the body of the article. --Bob Jonkman (whose firewall is preventing him from being logged in :-( , 25 October 2005

It used to be, but someone removed it shortly after I first inserted it. --JoeChongq 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

[[

These fake blogs waste valuable disk space, bandwidth, and pollute search engine results. ... isn't that a little self-serving? Not to endorse the practice, but there's lots of other people's opinions that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I should defacto classify them as a waste of office space. At least not in public.

These spam blogs are still journals, they are still the timely release of someone's idea of a rolling commentary, and the evolving nature of the content is still content, even if you personally don't like it. How can this be a waste? Spam blogs are an accurate portrayal of life online in 2005, and if you disagree with that, you haven't been online in a while.

Pollute search engine results ... give me a break. Look at any google search for any common word. Then talk to me about pollution. The white male american urban geek definition of every word wins out almost every time. Why? Because they can and do leverage RSS, aggregators, del.ico.us, technorati, TTLB, all those things are totally dominated by that demographic as if they were some kind of majority, and it is not because they have something significant to say, it's because they like to see themselves come out on top, it's because they can do it and love to show off their techno-skill. Hence, to ebay, a "cradle" is something you put an iPod into. Babies come into it way down the list.

And 'Java' and 'Ruby' are programming languages not a place, drink or precious stone, 'Mark' is a webpage developer not an apostle or a rube ... and a 'blog' is only the opinionated diary of a 'nice ' person who plays by the rules and colors inside the lines.

Ok, let's stop with the holier-than-thou; folks like me didn't build this internet thing our whole lives just to have it fall into the hands of one group. This isn't "Power to the Correct People" it was meant as power to the people, period. IIRC, Blogger.com was created to give everyone a voice, yes or no. Not "everyone we like". Everyone. Here Comes Everybody. If blogdom is to be an exclusive club of only those people Dave Winer approves of, it will be a very small party indeed, and if it is to be somewhere in between, then design a system that purposefully excludes the particular folks not like us that you don't want hanging around.

But if you want a world information service that is free, open and reflects the humanity that creates it, then grow up and quit hanging out with geeks, because there are a lot of people out there, and some of them are going to be just as repulsive to you as you are to them. (name withheld for personal safety) ]]

---

Splogs are not sharing any original opinions, ideas, or writings of the spammer. Most splogs are using text stolen from other people's RSS feeds or some Wikipedia articles so they can appear relevant and human written while loaded full of links to the spammer's sites. There are actual blogs run by spammers sharing their ideas on spamming that I hate, but they are not splogs.

So what if a word has multiple meanings. You should at least be able to find a page on one of them. When splogs and other web spam fill up search resutls you can't even find that. That is a problem with using language. The internet didn't start the idea of reusing words for other meanings.

--JoeChongq 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that there are Splogs in the External Links pages

Some of these External Links are sites with maybe 10 sentences of content, and 100s of ads. Like "FightSplog.com". I have to admit, FightSplog is mildly amusing, simply because it's a splog posing as an anti-splog site! 69.228.240.57 05:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. Just because a blog has ads, doesn't make it a splog. --Randymorin 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Definition is Incomplete

This definition of splogs does not include the vast majority of splogs. Splogs include a blog where the content is automated and includes ads. The splogger is simply looking to infest the SERPs (search engine results pages) and make money thru occasional clicks on his CPC (cost-per-click) ads. This type of splog is also called SplogSense (splog AdSense).--Randymorin 19:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Blog?

I disagree with the idea of merging this article with Blog. This is about a type of spamming technique, and the article on blogs is already too long. ChaTo 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you -- this is aspecific phenomenon, although I'm not sure that "splog" is the best name for the article (is that really the most common name for SEO-optimized ad farms?). --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I say no to the merge. The concept is different. Kevin (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

+moveprotection

I've temporarily moveprotected this to ensure that discussion completes, there appear to be discussions as to renaming v.s. mreging going on in several areas. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please point me to such discussions? The link in the template doesn't seem to do the job. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This was in response to there being a merge tag on this article, plus a CSD on Spam blog (since recreated). I will remove move protection in a few days unless there is a heated debate going on here (I am checking almost daily). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks.

For what it's worth, I think the speedy deletion of Spam blog was misguided, as there are many articles (and at least one template) linking to it. Redirecting it to spam blogs is only natural. If anything, it should be spam blogs that redirects to spam blog.

Actually, I made a mistake. In my question above I was referring to the discussion to merge to spamdexing, not to your moveprotection.

As far as I'm concerned, the existence of an article on spam blogs is as justified as the other articles on specialised forms of spamdexing (Google bomb, Keyword stuffing, Cloaking, Link farm, Web ring, Blog spam, Sping, Referer spam).

If I don't see where that merge proposal is being discussed, I'm going to remove the template. PizzaMargherita 06:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Note, I've removed the move protection, and do not endorse any particular move or merge option, but do recomend that they be made with concensus. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Google Brain?

I'd like to see some sources on this Google Brain rumor. Never heard of it before, and can't find anything on google relating to it except quotes of this page. Edward Grefenstette 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the search queries obtained for the splogs?

As I've examined these blogspot spam blogs, I've noticed their content seems to be full of different search queries. They just aren't random words picked from dictionaries, but something people have entered into search engines. How do spammers get those keywords, do they hack search engine logs or what? I think that needs some clarification. I couldn't find any information on that on the splog wikipage. Kohtalo (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

In my opinion, the topics of spam in blogs and spam blogs are very similar. I suggest the articles should be merged and perhaps moved to a title like Spam and blogging. Thoughts? Computerjoe's talk 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The two things are fundamentally different. cmadler (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with a merge. It appears that a spam blog consists entirely or almost entirely of material culled from other blogs, while spam in blogs is about spam that appears in legitimate blogs, such as in the comments area. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Spam blogs are a specific kind of noxious weed, creating using separate and distinct methodologies. The splogs are built using automated means that scrapes content from third parties. One of my prospective customers paid a company for high page rank and was surprised when a friend of his accused him of stealing content from his site. Spamming comments is another technique and uses different methodologies. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)