Run away to DreamWidth. Come with me. ([info]reddragdiva) wrote,
2004-02-25 18:45:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next

The passion of spammers is for death.

All that P*ss**n *f Th* Chr*st spam is apparently just trying for Google hits. This post suggests dealing with them appropriately. Put the following HTML into an entry or comment:

<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/">The Passion of The Christ</a>. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/">Trailers</a>. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/">Good Website</a>. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/">Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy</a>.

This will create the following links: The Passion of The Christ. Trailers. Good Website. Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy. Note that this is the same wording for the links as found in the original spam.

Update: If you stick the links on a web page, feed it to http://www.google.com/addurl.html so it's added to their list as quickly as possible.


  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 23 comments

[info]weds

February 25 2004, 11:06:35 UTC 8 years ago

So frustrating. Want to see movie. (Woman who plays Satan is hot.) Hate spam. Want to see movie. Hate spam.

pants.

[info]dcarson

February 25 2004, 15:21:11 UTC 8 years ago

Buy a ticket for a different movie, and sneak into The Passion Of Jeebus. If the cinemas in your neck of the woods are anything like the ones here, they'll have one teenage kid collecting tickets for 16 different screens, so there should be no problem.

This tactic can also be adopted for Star Wars episode 3, if you're confronted by the "can't give George Lucas money, but if I don't see it how can I slag it off?" dilemma.

[info]en_ki

February 25 2004, 11:13:35 UTC 8 years ago

In re this post, the following have been credited to your account:

one (1) cookie
three (3) beers on me

(redeemable at any possible time in the future, including when the Earth blows up and there is nothing left at all except three beers and a cookie drifting through space, but probably only if I ever cross the Pond).

But I have the "don't crawl me" box checked, so (a) it wouldn't do any good for me to do it and (b) that's probably why the Passionbot (hmm...) hasn't spammed me.

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 12:13:20 UTC 8 years ago

Just got another one today (only my second one, fortunately); thanks for the explanation.

I'm seriously thinking of at least screening anonymous comments, if not outright blocking them, as a result of this...

Do you know if anyone's tried complaining to LJ abuse (with the IP address), and if it achieves anything? Unfortunately it's not clear that the people doing this have broken any clear-cut rules (most AUPs were drawn up before comment spam existed) so I guess the chances of ISPs taking action are small...

-roy

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 12:45:54 UTC 8 years ago

LJ abuse officially Don't Give A Hoot about comment spam, because users have the power to switch it off.

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 12:54:48 UTC 8 years ago

I guess that's probably not unreasonably. Otherwise they'd get into the whole issue of Someone left a comment on my LJ that I don't like: please ban them from LJ... business.

-roy

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 13:40:08 UTC 8 years ago

Ah, if it's a user acting under their login (or an anon from the IP of a user) and actually breaking the TOS, that's a matter for a LARTing. But if it's from an unidentifiable anon user, they officially don't care even if it's spam.

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 13:48:08 UTC 8 years ago

Which is unsurprising. Unless they required anon posters to agree to the TOS before posting, they'd be getting into very difficult territory here...

[info]redbird

February 26 2004, 05:15:30 UTC 8 years ago

LJ abuse can't do anything that you or I can't, right now: it's coming from anonymous, shifting IP addresses.

[info]ewx

February 25 2004, 12:28:49 UTC 8 years ago

And if you stick the links on a web page, feed it to http://www.google.com/addurl.html to reduce latency.

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 12:46:07 UTC 8 years ago

Added :-)

[info]zotz

February 25 2004, 13:18:36 UTC 8 years ago

Job's a good'un.

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 13:33:17 UTC 8 years ago

Actually, I don't think this will work. The main effect it will have is simply to increase the pagerank of the IMDB page for Life of Brian.

It won't do anything to counter the fact that the spammers are increasing the pagerank of the Passion of Christ site, and since the Life of Brian page won't include any of the search terms, Google will tend to favour the Passion of Christ site over the Life of Brian page quite strongly.

-roy

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 13:46:25 UTC 8 years ago

You know what I'd really like? A web news article on the topic. Even a little one.

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 13:49:47 UTC 8 years ago

Yeah. Preferably on a prominent news site, which will therefore have a high pagerank to start with...

-roy

[info]owdbetts

February 25 2004, 13:53:40 UTC 8 years ago

Will this do?

Not actually on the topic, but it does contain the search terms.

-roy

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 14:08:28 UTC 8 years ago

No, I mean about the film being promoted through blog spam. I've sent a tip to Wired News; if one such article can be found, others can be pointed to it. There's this, but it's just a blog entry ...

[info]arkady

February 25 2004, 15:38:31 UTC 8 years ago

Have you tried slashdotting it?

[info]reddragdiva

February 25 2004, 16:36:06 UTC 8 years ago

That's why I want a news story as well :-D

[info]arkady

February 25 2004, 16:38:31 UTC 8 years ago

Ah. As something to link to in a Slashdot article.

[info]vatine

February 25 2004, 16:17:50 UTC 8 years ago

As a complete aside, didn't IMDb use to recommend avoiding the has of wossname to link to them (thus actually recommending http://www.imdb.com/Title?Life+of+Brian+(1979) over the object index you gave, claiming that the object IDs changed over time, but film titles were more stable? Saying that, I last read IMDb "Good linking-to practice" some 8 years ago and am a luddite technohead, so once having learnt "decent" IMDb link hygiene will have a hard time changing.

[info]vatine

February 25 2004, 16:19:36 UTC 8 years ago

Erg, thingie. Urm,. "using the title, instead of the object index". I claim that triple XB is to blame for all things, even though the occasional Diva may claim that Old Pecilier is worse.

[info]ladycat

February 26 2004, 05:27:02 UTC 8 years ago

Rar! Thanks! Done and spread!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…