Follow at your peril!
January 20th 2007 03:41
When I first noticed comments appearing on my other site, I was puzzled by some of the content. They would start off as something – it seemed – relating to the topic, and then, with dizzying lack of logic, hive off to some site not in the least connected with what had been said.
Of course I realised these were some kind of spam, but equally I didn’t want to stop legitimate people making comments on the blog.
I don’t know where Blogger has now achieved some sort of approach that stops these comments from appearing (I’ve only had legit ones lately) but certainly things have improved.
I’ve been reading up on the no-follow debate. (No-follow generally means that search engines won’t follow a link that’s been submitted by a spammer.) In the early days of the argument one site gave 16 seemingly valid reasons why no-follow would not be a success, and would also be more of a hindrance to the bloggers than the spammers.
A more recent discussion of the issue – on the ever faithful Wikipedia – covers the ground more thoroughly, as well as looking at some of the arguments raised by the other site.
I must Wikipedia seems to have got better and better: more informative, more detailed, and in general there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rubbish going down there. But perhaps I’ve been fortunate in only checking things that were (mostly) accurate, of late.
Of course I realised these were some kind of spam, but equally I didn’t want to stop legitimate people making comments on the blog.
I don’t know where Blogger has now achieved some sort of approach that stops these comments from appearing (I’ve only had legit ones lately) but certainly things have improved.
I’ve been reading up on the no-follow debate. (No-follow generally means that search engines won’t follow a link that’s been submitted by a spammer.) In the early days of the argument one site gave 16 seemingly valid reasons why no-follow would not be a success, and would also be more of a hindrance to the bloggers than the spammers.
A more recent discussion of the issue – on the ever faithful Wikipedia – covers the ground more thoroughly, as well as looking at some of the arguments raised by the other site.
I must Wikipedia seems to have got better and better: more informative, more detailed, and in general there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rubbish going down there. But perhaps I’ve been fortunate in only checking things that were (mostly) accurate, of late.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
