(I'm not here right now, please email a message) ([info]reddragdiva) wrote,
@ 2004-02-25 18:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
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)


[info]weds
2004-02-25 11:06 am UTC (link)
So frustrating. Want to see movie. (Woman who plays Satan is hot.) Hate spam. Want to see movie. Hate spam.

pants.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dcarson
2004-02-25 03:21 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]en_ki
2004-02-25 11:13 am UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)


[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 12:13 pm UTC (link)
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

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 12:45 pm UTC (link)
LJ abuse officially Don't Give A Hoot about comment spam, because users have the power to switch it off.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 12:54 pm UTC (link)
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

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 01:40 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 01:48 pm UTC (link)
Which is unsurprising. Unless they required anon posters to agree to the TOS before posting, they'd be getting into very difficult territory here...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]redbird
2004-02-26 05:15 am UTC (link)
LJ abuse can't do anything that you or I can't, right now: it's coming from anonymous, shifting IP addresses.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ewx
2004-02-25 12:28 pm UTC (link)
And if you stick the links on a web page, feed it to http://www.google.com/addurl.html to reduce latency.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 12:46 pm UTC (link)
Added :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]zotz
2004-02-25 01:18 pm UTC (link)
Job's a good'un.

(Reply to this)


[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 01:33 pm UTC (link)
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

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 01:46 pm UTC (link)
You know what I'd really like? A web news article on the topic. Even a little one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 01:49 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. Preferably on a prominent news site, which will therefore have a high pagerank to start with...

-roy

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]owdbetts
2004-02-25 01:53 pm UTC (link)
Will this do?

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

-roy

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 02:08 pm UTC (link)
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 ...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]arkady
2004-02-25 03:38 pm UTC (link)
Have you tried slashdotting it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2004-02-25 04:36 pm UTC (link)
That's why I want a news story as well :-D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]arkady
2004-02-25 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Ah. As something to link to in a Slashdot article.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]vatine
2004-02-25 04:17 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]vatine
2004-02-25 04:19 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ladycat
2004-02-26 05:27 am UTC (link)
Rar! Thanks! Done and spread!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…