?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Weblog Comment Spam Ramifications Spam Comment Weblog

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 20th, 2004 | 05:41 am
mood: okayokay
music: CHKDSK is verifying files...

I liked this thread on the phenomenon of weblog comment spam. That's where someone (or a bot) posts a bland comment designed to look like it belongs in the discussion, but the clickable link behind the supposed person's signature points to a commercial site rather than a personal one, often casino gambling or porn. This is done because having that link spammed in there increases its "Google juice", since now there's one more site (the weblog) pointing to it. The more popular the weblog, the more desirable a spam target it is.

My favorite part, and the reason I'm talking about it here, is the idea that automated methods of posting weblog comment spam will get even more crafty, and taken to its logical extreme, a 'bot' will actually pass the Turing test in this limited context -- we'll be having meaningful discussions with these bot programs!

Someone else points out that, as long as they're well-behaved and actually contributing to the conversation, who cares?

And finally:
Despite what Jeremy says, in his very judicious and proper tone, I do insist and concur with Avram and others: this is evolution in the best sense:
spambots create garbled test, which we delete.
More spambots come, v1.2, that create slightly less garbled test and on-topic posts. We delete.
Spambots v3.4 attack with their witty and accurate vision of the blogosphere, having traversed it all, and are able to debate our points and make a coherent argument.
We are deleted.

The main blog entry closes with a Heinlein reference: Indeed, are we sure it isn’t already happening right now? I mean, I know I’m real, but where did all you zombies come from—?

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {14}

(no subject)

from: u34km3
date: May. 20th, 2004 04:20 am (UTC)
Link

Awesome!

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

Inescapable logic

from: triple_entendre
date: May. 20th, 2004 04:51 am (UTC)
Link

"You keep using that word..." ...we must meet for coffee1!

-Trip


1. Or its equivalent!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: Inescapable logic

from: u34km3
date: May. 20th, 2004 05:20 pm (UTC)
Link

For sure!

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: webnesto
date: May. 20th, 2004 04:23 am (UTC)
Link

While the thought of having a conversation with a computer program (a meaningful conversation) does titilate me, I still take extreme issue with anything decreasing Google's efficacy. In my opinion it is the efficiency of Google that is half of what my employers pay for unknowingly. I probably use it more than I do any production "tools".

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

Googly

from: triple_entendre
date: May. 20th, 2004 04:44 am (UTC)
Link

Oh, absolutely. Back when the WWW started (OMG did I really just say that?), I had a homemade 'home page' that had the usual: a pitcher of me an' a couple of pages of 'resources' that I'd gathered that related to my specialty (at the time, Microsoft Access Database Programming). My little 'MSAccess Resources' page was well-liked and included on several dozen other such sites.

Today, I have no home page and no resource pages at all. My browser starts up at Google's main page. So does my phone. I google topics of discussion while chatting at cocktail parties, quickly enough to contribute even on subjects I know nothing about. I actually know less and less about what I get paid to do professionally, and that's a good thing. More and more, I focus on meaning and results. If some task starts taking too long, it's usually time to back out (and up) a level, and google-storm for a different approach. "Meta, meta, meta, GOOSE!" *runs around wildly*

Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: Googly

from: spumoni
date: May. 20th, 2004 03:02 pm (UTC)
Link

It's "meta, meta, meta, gray meta"
actually.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: ketadream
date: May. 20th, 2004 04:45 am (UTC)
Link

I worked in Web adult for a bit (about a year) and chatroom spam bots and IM spam bots where all the rage, people trying to get ones that slightly passed the turing test or had some sence of believability personaly I wanted to write a /. spam bot that would reply to comments using some form of an intelligent parser gathering moderation/karma points and then goes into troll mode and trolls out its moderation/karma points...

Ok silly yea... idle minds...

Cool Heinlein Quote...

B.T.W. we have some mutual friends.. Just added you, we may have even met once or twice...

Reply | Thread

Pace

(no subject)

from: ubiquity
date: May. 20th, 2004 06:25 am (UTC)
Link

Yeah, I'm working on it! (:

Reply | Thread

Jenmarie

(no subject)

from: jenmarie
date: May. 20th, 2004 08:22 am (UTC)
Link

insidious Janes, eh?

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: May. 20th, 2004 09:52 am (UTC)
Link

come again?

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey

(no subject)

from: chefmonkey
date: May. 20th, 2004 12:26 pm (UTC)
Link

Stop! Replying to the bots only feeds them!

Reply | Parent | Thread

Jenmarie

(no subject)

from: jenmarie
date: May. 25th, 2004 09:07 pm (UTC)
Link

??

Just commenting on yer Heinlein reference there. he/she started out as Jane....

"There isn’t anyone but me — Jane — here alone in the dark."

Reply | Parent | Thread

snobscure

(no subject)

from: snobscure
date: May. 20th, 2004 09:29 am (UTC)
Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3503465.stm

Of course, someone who is being propositioned is about as far from an impartial judge as it's possible to get.

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

OMFGSMSLOLBBQ

from: triple_entendre
date: May. 20th, 2004 09:50 am (UTC)
Link

The article's parting shot is a thing of beauty:
Of course these examples could be taken as humans failing the Turing test rather than machines passing it.

Reply | Parent | Thread