<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Spam Insidy.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/</link>
	<description>Thoughts, musings, and rants by Karl Fogel</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: PPather</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-52344</link>
		<dc:creator>PPather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-52344</guid>
		<description>Well thanks for the information guys it is really useful. I am going to edit my blog now and start blocking the spammers :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well thanks for the information guys it is really useful. I am going to edit my blog now and start blocking the spammers <img src='http://www.rants.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Fogel</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-46066</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Fogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:39:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-46066</guid>
		<description>More notes to myself (since this post and its comments have become my scratch pad for an ideal moderation system):

Response time, response time, response time.  After you mark a message as ham or spam, you &lt;em&gt;must&lt;/em&gt; be able to move on to the next item with no further delay.  If there is any waiting for the action just performed, the waiting must happen in the background.  Two examples of where this rule is not followed: the Drupal "delete this post" action, and my own mailreader (Gnus) when I'm approving Subversion mailing list posts.

Also, no confirmation step.  Asking for confirmation is pessimal: you pay the price in advance for a mistake you might or might not be about to make.  And of course, you just habituate to the confirmation step anyway; thus confirmation is only useful when the confirmation-requiring action is liable to be accidentally invoked instead of some other non-confirmation-requiring action.  That's not the case in, say, the Drupal interface.

The better alternative to confirmation is rollback&#160;&#8212;&#160;the ability to realize you've just made a mistake and undo it.  So that means posts marked as spam go to a holding bin.  A post can be automatically flushed out of that bin after 24 hours or a week or whatever; the point is that it just needs to be available for retrieval in the few seconds after one marks it as spam, because that's the window in which one realizes one miscategorized something.

Note how this is tied in with the response time / no confirmation step rules: if the interface allows you to fly along marking things one way or the other, then your brain starts pipelining, and you will usually realize you've mis-marked something a few messages later.  Example: deleting spams (not moderating, just deleting) in a Gnus mail group using the "e" key.  Post-marking realization of miscategorization is by far the common case there, in my experience.  Thus, marking must be undo-able within a reasonable window.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More notes to myself (since this post and its comments have become my scratch pad for an ideal moderation system):</p>
<p>Response time, response time, response time.  After you mark a message as ham or spam, you <em>must</em> be able to move on to the next item with no further delay.  If there is any waiting for the action just performed, the waiting must happen in the background.  Two examples of where this rule is not followed: the Drupal &#8220;delete this post&#8221; action, and my own mailreader (Gnus) when I&#8217;m approving Subversion mailing list posts.</p>
<p>Also, no confirmation step.  Asking for confirmation is pessimal: you pay the price in advance for a mistake you might or might not be about to make.  And of course, you just habituate to the confirmation step anyway; thus confirmation is only useful when the confirmation-requiring action is liable to be accidentally invoked instead of some other non-confirmation-requiring action.  That&#8217;s not the case in, say, the Drupal interface.</p>
<p>The better alternative to confirmation is rollback&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;the ability to realize you&#8217;ve just made a mistake and undo it.  So that means posts marked as spam go to a holding bin.  A post can be automatically flushed out of that bin after 24 hours or a week or whatever; the point is that it just needs to be available for retrieval in the few seconds after one marks it as spam, because that&#8217;s the window in which one realizes one miscategorized something.</p>
<p>Note how this is tied in with the response time / no confirmation step rules: if the interface allows you to fly along marking things one way or the other, then your brain starts pipelining, and you will usually realize you&#8217;ve mis-marked something a few messages later.  Example: deleting spams (not moderating, just deleting) in a Gnus mail group using the &#8220;e&#8221; key.  Post-marking realization of miscategorization is by far the common case there, in my experience.  Thus, marking must be undo-able within a reasonable window.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Fogel</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-38671</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Fogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-38671</guid>
		<description>Steve,

Thanks for the tip.  I'm using a content management system (Drupal), so I'd need to persuade its code for displaying comments to add that attribute.  I'll take a look at Drupal and see what that would involve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>Thanks for the tip.  I&#8217;m using a content management system (Drupal), so I&#8217;d need to persuade its code for displaying comments to add that attribute.  I&#8217;ll take a look at Drupal and see what that would involve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Fogel</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-38670</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Fogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-38670</guid>
		<description>Wow.  How bizarre.  I mean, people who would never walk into a quiet library and start shouting loudly and distractingly somehow don't see anything wrong with being a paid-link spammer.  (At least, I'm assuming your friend's friend matches the preceding description.)

Anonymity really is the death of courtesy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow.  How bizarre.  I mean, people who would never walk into a quiet library and start shouting loudly and distractingly somehow don&#8217;t see anything wrong with being a paid-link spammer.  (At least, I&#8217;m assuming your friend&#8217;s friend matches the preceding description.)</p>
<p>Anonymity really is the death of courtesy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jessica</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-38657</link>
		<dc:creator>jessica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-38657</guid>
		<description>Yeah, it was just a few months ago that I had a conversation with someone whose friend is employed as a link spammer. Apparently one of her fortes is linking to tech products. She'll go on tech blogs and forums and say something like, "Hi, guys! I'm kind of new here, but I'm looking for a new t.v., and I wanted the opinion of someone who really knows what he's talking about! I'm looking for something light-weight, not too expensive, and something that won't break. My friend has a [spammy link] and says I should get one too, but I don't know. What do you guys think? Thanks! ;)"

When possible, she accompanies her post with an attractive userpic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, it was just a few months ago that I had a conversation with someone whose friend is employed as a link spammer. Apparently one of her fortes is linking to tech products. She&#8217;ll go on tech blogs and forums and say something like, &#8220;Hi, guys! I&#8217;m kind of new here, but I&#8217;m looking for a new t.v., and I wanted the opinion of someone who really knows what he&#8217;s talking about! I&#8217;m looking for something light-weight, not too expensive, and something that won&#8217;t break. My friend has a [spammy link] and says I should get one too, but I don&#8217;t know. What do you guys think? Thanks! ;)&#8221;</p>
<p>When possible, she accompanies her post with an attractive userpic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Alexander</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-27611</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-27611</guid>
		<description>Karl, in the "internet marketing" example, the code I see in my browser is a regular looking HTML anchor tag. I'm surprised it isn't marked "nofollow", as that would surely make it less useful for spammers seeking to increase their google pagerank.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Karl, in the &#8220;internet marketing&#8221; example, the code I see in my browser is a regular looking HTML anchor tag. I&#8217;m surprised it isn&#8217;t marked &#8220;nofollow&#8221;, as that would surely make it less useful for spammers seeking to increase their google pagerank.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Fogel</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-26274</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Fogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-26274</guid>
		<description>David,

Glad to hear you were real.  I'll keep an eye out for your reply when moderating the site.  

Since my entire article above is precisely about the difficulty of distinguishing between (or even &lt;em&gt;defining&lt;/em&gt;) "spammy" and "legitimate" posts in this new era of paid-link spam, I'm not sure how better to explain the situation.

Note that I'm not accusing you of being a paid-link spammer; it seems clear you're not.  I'm merely pointing out that it is now becoming very hard for site moderators to tell the difference quickly enough to moderate efficiently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,</p>
<p>Glad to hear you were real.  I&#8217;ll keep an eye out for your reply when moderating the site.  </p>
<p>Since my entire article above is precisely about the difficulty of distinguishing between (or even <em>defining</em>) &#8220;spammy&#8221; and &#8220;legitimate&#8221; posts in this new era of paid-link spam, I&#8217;m not sure how better to explain the situation.</p>
<p>Note that I&#8217;m not accusing you of being a paid-link spammer; it seems clear you&#8217;re not.  I&#8217;m merely pointing out that it is now becoming very hard for site moderators to tell the difference quickly enough to moderate efficiently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-26256</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-26256</guid>
		<description>I would like you to note that I did actually make a unique reply on that page. As you can see I have not added the link to my site here since you'll probably remove it anyway. My comment was not spammy, it was a legitimate post. I also run a blog and give posters the right to link back to their site. I do not see the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like you to note that I did actually make a unique reply on that page. As you can see I have not added the link to my site here since you&#8217;ll probably remove it anyway. My comment was not spammy, it was a legitimate post. I also run a blog and give posters the right to link back to their site. I do not see the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Assaf</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-26078</link>
		<dc:creator>Assaf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-26078</guid>
		<description>Ironically, I have failed the turing test :-) That trackback does look like spam, but I can assure you no male-enhancing products are hiding behind that link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ironically, I have failed the turing test <img src='http://www.rants.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> That trackback does look like spam, but I can assure you no male-enhancing products are hiding behind that link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Fogel</title>
		<link>http://www.rants.org/2008/06/23/spam_insidy/#comment-25996</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Fogel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rants.org/?p=69#comment-25996</guid>
		<description>I left a comment at...

http://blog.labnotes.org/2008/07/06/smart-spam-and-new-comment-policy/#comment-140779

...responding to Labnotes's automated comment (which is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; a spam, by the way, despite surface appearances -- see the above link for why).

-Karl</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I left a comment at&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.labnotes.org/2008/07/06/smart-spam-and-new-comment-policy/#comment-140779" rel="nofollow">http://blog.labnotes.org/2008/07/06/smart-spam-and-new-comment-policy/#comment-140779</a></p>
<p>&#8230;responding to Labnotes&#8217;s automated comment (which is <em>not</em> a spam, by the way, despite surface appearances &#8212; see the above link for why).</p>
<p>-Karl</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
