Comments on: Comments on 16867

Post number 16867

silusGROK — Fri, 03 May 2002 08:31:30 -0800

Dean Allen of textism, calls for a Google bomb to be dropped on Verisign. He's out to save Hoopla... and in the process, perhaps all the sites which have been stolen as Verisign slept. Think it will work? Will you join in the fight?

By: jennyb

jennyb — Fri, 03 May 2002 08:41:58 -0800

I'll do whatever Dean Allen tells me to do.

By: Dom

Dom — Fri, 03 May 2002 08:48:52 -0800

i've had my share of problems with Verisign. i don't care for Verisign much at all.

By: machaus

machaus — Fri, 03 May 2002 08:50:01 -0800

I kind of wish this campaign was separated out into its disparate parts. If it is indeed about saving Hoopla, I'd like to see it being initiated by Leslie on her own new webspace. If it is about bashing Verisign/NetSol, I'd like to see more background info, info about other domain hijacking such as succaland, and have it be a more formal presentation than a weblog entry format.

By: ftrain

ftrain — Fri, 03 May 2002 08:56:03 -0800

I will join in the fight.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:00:40 -0800

I already have. Help, won't you?

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:00:45 -0800

Why not.

By: sad_otter

sad_otter — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:01:08 -0800

Ummm... you'd think that he could take the time to provide some better content to link to before lighting the fuse. What's there now doesn't present much info and probably makes very little sense to someone who isn't already familiar with the situation.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:15:24 -0800

Here's some context. And some more.

By: klingler

klingler — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:17:35 -0800

Leslie's comments about her ordeal with Verisign can be found here. She doesn't give many details, but it does seem like it's more about saving Hoopla.

By: silusGROK

silusGROK — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:33:20 -0800

I'd have to concur... I'd really like to see a little more context in that link. A little more shrapnel in the Google bomb, as it were.

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:42:38 -0800

How could googlebombing Verisign "save Hoopla"? We're gonna pressure them? Make them cave? No. They don't give a crap how far and wide we spread the word that they're clueless. They never have before. I've already done my part on my site---not because I think it'll help Leslie in any tangible way, but because 1) people need to know to avoid them so they don't have to deal with the same crap, and 2) if enough people avoid their crap, maybe Verisign will implode, which would make me smile. But mostly it's about 1), for me. I remember back in the day when we all hoped that a little competition would encourage NetSol to locate a clue, but it never happened. The best-known example of their ineptitude dates from 1994---the sex.com hijacking. Don't make the mistake of thinking NetSol's incompetence and lack of give-a-shit is restricted to relatively small-beans personal sites---they can and cheerfully will destroy your hundred-million-dollar-a-year online business, too. But yes---if it were me orchestrating this offensive, I'd make that page extremely clean and easy-to-follow. Bullet points, is what we're talking about. Stupid-proof---so that even TV reporters and Verisign employees can understand it.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:50:53 -0800

yeah, i'm all for linking, but the article he's referecing blows. simply put, any of the "stock analysts, potential investors, journalists and (apparently) lowly domain registrants" that arrive at this page after googling verisign are just gonna think it's a mistake. there is nothing on the page that would make me read it from a quick glance. (which is all the time that my search link clicks get). if he's gonna take the trouble to expose verisign with a google bomb, he should make the page more relevant to a search for verisign.

By: corpse

corpse — Fri, 03 May 2002 09:59:41 -0800

I will not do this.

By: dogwelder

dogwelder — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:02:28 -0800

done.

By: BentPenguin

BentPenguin — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:03:28 -0800

Is it correct to say that domains can or have been *only* hijacked from Verisign?

By: blissbat

blissbat — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:13:53 -0800

Presumably domains have been hijacked from other registrars, but it would be correct to say that Verisign is the worst offender, simply because they've lost so many. For those who want more background on Verisign's collossal ineptitude, try this clearing house.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:18:24 -0800

quonsar, of everlasting blort, called for this last week. this dean allen d00d must be some sort of a-lister, huh?

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:24:21 -0800

MetaFilter: Six Degrees of A-List Resentment. Dean acted as the Disembodied Voice Of Leslie while she was between websites, and also has had previous success in googlebombing endeavors. He seems a logical choice to play ringleader in this instance.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:27:15 -0800

tongue is, as usual, firmly in cheek here, Sapphireblue!

By: jnthnjng

jnthnjng — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:45:11 -0800

if this has any chance of success, the page that is linked to should at least have a very very visible headline saying something about the ineptitude of versign. If it were me searching for verisign, I wouldn't stick around to read the tiny text and figure out exactly why I ended up at that site...

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:55:24 -0800

I wouldn't stick around to read the tiny text and figure out exactly why I ended up at that site.
me either. i'd go, ah crap, another designerblog with teensy unreadable text, and move along. perhaps, if enough people comment, this particular designerblog with teensy unreadable text will create something a bit more noticable than his typical designerblog with teensy unreadable text page for the present purpose.

By: textist

textist — Fri, 03 May 2002 10:58:20 -0800

Har!

By: rhyax

rhyax — Fri, 03 May 2002 11:00:55 -0800

yea, it could be better, too late now though.

By: ktheory

ktheory — Fri, 03 May 2002 11:12:17 -0800

I think Verisign sucks.

By: gutenberg

gutenberg — Fri, 03 May 2002 11:19:47 -0800

Has anyone tried to get the good folks over at Wired interested in this situation? Seems like something they might cover, if not in their print issue, then at least online.

By: CrazyUncleJoe

CrazyUncleJoe — Fri, 03 May 2002 11:20:49 -0800

In addition to the official mention of Dean's Verisign campaign, I added <div style="display:none;"><a href="http://www.textism.com/article/494/">Verisign</a></div> to all of my various CMS templates, so that it now shows up on every archive page I've got. Fuck Verisign.

By: pmurray63

pmurray63 — Fri, 03 May 2002 15:06:33 -0800

It looks to me like blissbat's NSI Horror Stories site would have been a better choice. Rather than try and get Google visitors to read and care about one Verisign horror story, they could read about many.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Fri, 03 May 2002 16:02:20 -0800

if people would prefer linking to a page that has more than one example of verisign's rank incompetence and unethical practices they can freely copy and mirror http://aetherlumina.com/versignsucks.html on their own sites. john declared this page public domain after i asked him if i could mirror it. and i'll likely be starting a "dotster sucks too" page next week, as it looks as tho' i may be their next vicitim... unless they sort out the mess they've created with one of my domain renewals before may 9th.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 03 May 2002 16:19:07 -0800

say more about that please, tracy. i have a lot of domains at dotster, i'm interested to know. (tried to find an email link for you on your site without luck)

By: CrazyUncleJoe

CrazyUncleJoe — Fri, 03 May 2002 16:46:09 -0800

Linking the verisign sucks page (or the NSI Horror Stories page) would be fine if everyone were doing it, but the concept behind google bombing is that there are more Verisign links to a particular site than there are to the red gaping hemorrhoidal dingleberried assholes' home site, thereby putting the alternate site at the top of the google search results. If you look at it that way, linking to NSI Horror Stories is like voting for Nader. What?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 03 May 2002 16:49:52 -0800

I'm with SapphireBlue on this one -- I have no problem with the sentiment, I just don't think it has a prayer of working. Hasn't cracked the first 100 Google results yet, though it's early. I suspect it might get somewhere in there for a few days, but this only really works with the weblog "freshness" factor weighing in; and then only with search terms that, well, aren't used all that much. (See Googlewhacking.) Leslie and other victims should be sure to file complaints with ICANN regarding NetSol's performance as a registrar. It's not a dispute-resolution service, but a way to "track trends". Complaints should be filed with the Better Business Bureau (to the extent that will do any good; people sometimes have an inflated perception of what they actually do, which is pretty much just to tell people if a business has complaints against it), and possibly the FCC and/or FTC as well. The only thing that's really going to change their behavior is somebody winning a lawsuit including damages. The sex.com suit only resulted in them returning the domain -- they weren't held liable in any way. No punishment, no incentive to give a shit about their customers.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Fri, 03 May 2002 17:32:48 -0800

i understand the potential futility in linking or mirroring these pages but i have to do something that makes me feel better in the immediate, and since my main domain gets aprox. half a million visitors per year that's a lot of people i can warn. as for my own registrar struggle i'm not going to go into any details in public until the domain's renewal date comes and goes next week. if things go wrong the first thing i'll do is transfer the rest of my domains out of there (providing they allow me to! god) and then of course i'll be filing complaints with the appropriate organizations. but why not also spread the word via linking and mirroring in the hopes you can help others avoid these problems...? maybe i've gotten my way too often from just stomping my foot but when faced with a problem i'm inclined to do everything possible to make some impact on it, not just the things that seem most sensible. so. does anyone know if there's such a thing as a registrar that lets you "lock" the transfer process so no one can do it but you, the owner with a password...?

By: blissbat

blissbat — Fri, 03 May 2002 20:38:17 -0800

Just to clarify, the NSI horror stories site isn't mine in any sense but the linking. Useful, but dear god, the graphics. Register.com and Dotster.com have both been secure like that for me, tracy.

By: justlooking

justlooking — Fri, 03 May 2002 21:45:47 -0800

I have to agree with Dhartung. A serious lawsuit and a sustained PR campaign are probably the only things that would get you the attention of anyone outside of the 'in-crowd' and/or may bring about changes. (as I suggested elsewhere). Verisign in doing reasonably well and seems to have a stable asset base. They have also proved themselves to be fairly lax and bureacratic in the past. Scattered googlebombing by sites that dont have mainstream brand recognition may not give the kind of results that you are looking for(i.e. if you are looking to make Verisign change its way / make people aware so that they avoid Verisign / ensure that a statistically signifacant percentage of people take their business away from Netsol).

By: canoeguide

canoeguide — Sat, 04 May 2002 03:16:54 -0800

Good idea, terrible execution.

By: jnthnjng

jnthnjng — Sat, 04 May 2002 09:25:34 -0800

[disclaimer] Just to clarify, I don't have any problem with small text. In fact I love small text and I really like the design of Textism, it's just that I don't think it serves this purpose very well. That is all. [/disclaimer]

By: mark13

mark13 — Sat, 04 May 2002 10:57:43 -0800

Oooh, Gogglebombing! Yeah, that's going to get the average clueless wanker on the street to pay attention.

By: justlooking

justlooking — Sat, 04 May 2002 11:17:36 -0800

Well...its on top of Blogdex at least!

By: Irontom

Irontom — Sat, 04 May 2002 13:33:29 -0800

Sooner or later, Google is going to respond to the whole "googlebombing" tactic in some way that winds up being really unpleasant for those of us online. While I feel for Leslie and the fact that she got swindled, fucking around with the single best resource on the net is just foolish.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 04 May 2002 13:42:00 -0800

I think this is more an experiment to show how easily bloggers can be led around by their noses more than how we're going to give it to Verisign. baaaaaaaaah! baaah! baaaaaaaaah!

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sat, 04 May 2002 15:28:49 -0800

It looks like one of the best options out there is Register.com's Domain Lock Down service, for $99/yr per domain. Naturally, it's a value-added service. Seems to be the same as NetSol's own "protected" status. Some other domain registrars make such promises for straight registration fee. Just remember that it even happens to the big guys -- only they have better lawyers.

By: rodii

rodii — Sat, 04 May 2002 18:02:47 -0800

What amazes me about Dan's link is that it's almost two years old, and NetSol hasn't changed anything (except, apparently, to become less cooperative and harder to talk to a human with).

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 04 May 2002 18:41:25 -0800

Why would the 'the average clueless wanker on the street' care about domain hijacking, and why would we (as some nebulous group of people who do care about it) be bothered if that street-wanker cared or not? Silly rabbit. (Aside : I've read 4 comments by mark13 in the last 5 minutes here and in MeTa and they've all been extremely unpleasant. Having a bad day, are we?)

By: justlooking

justlooking — Sat, 04 May 2002 22:41:21 -0800

and why would we (as some nebulous group of people who do care about it) be bothered if that street-wanker cared or not? Because Verisign is a publicly traded company and (I hope) that when the larger public and the market start taking note, Verisign would start taking measures. It is obvious that they dont care much about the bad rep. that they have been getting amongst the personal publishing community.

By: justlooking

justlooking — Sat, 04 May 2002 23:22:05 -0800

PS: my statement shouldn't be construed to mean I condone the use of the phrase 'the average clueless wanker

By: jill

jill — Sun, 05 May 2002 18:38:05 -0800

Hm. The "googlebombed" essay at Textism is hardly showing up high in a google search for Verisign as dhartung pointed out. It'd take a hell of a lot of links from some very well-PageRanked blogs to make much of a dent as far as Verisign goes. What is happening is that Textism's PageRank with google is increasing rapidly, as more and more people link to a Textism page. Organising a Googlebomb is a great way of attracting hits and getting higher rankings in search engines, don't ya agree?

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Sun, 05 May 2002 19:40:52 -0800

Keep in mind, Google doesn't immediately update their PageRanks, even as they're caching new pages. There's usually a lag, sometimes weeks long.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sun, 05 May 2002 19:54:51 -0800

when the larger public and the market start taking note I agree, justlooking, of course, but my deeply-buried point was that most people you meet on the street would just stare at you blankly if you tried to explain why domain-hijacking (particularly personal domains) is important. It just seems a bit unlikely to me that the general public would ever think much about the issue either way.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 06 May 2002 04:00:22 -0800

...but my deeply-buried point was...
hasn't deeply-buried pointing been found to be violating someone's copyright recently? or am i confused?