Comments on: Clone blogs

Clone blogs

moonbird — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:12:24 -0800

Clone blogs: spurious blogs that look real, but exist solely to purvey smut in a very shady way. They're becoming ever more clever, those spammers.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:15:15 -0800

whois info for each of the offending domains shows different registrants, but all hosted with Stargate.

By: riffola

riffola — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:28:44 -0800

They look real because they steal the content and design.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:31:24 -0800

how is the smut being purveyed again? oh, right. in a very shady way. i don't understand. who benefits from this 'conspiracy'?

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:37:33 -0800

This explains the mystery of "Laura's blog".

By: glenwood

glenwood — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:52:53 -0800

it's funny. some of my sites have been listing these sites as the referrer in their server logs. i still don't understand why?

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:54:15 -0800

i'm sorry, but how do i get to see the porn? i've disabled privoxy and reloaded. nothing. jennifer reads boing boing. maybe it's just a pseudonym for xeni?

By: brownpau

brownpau — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:55:19 -0800

Go to the bottom of the page and look for a blank GIF. It links to an "/adult-webcam" page.

By: crawl

crawl — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:00:46 -0800

Wait, I "look for a blank GIF"? How do I know when I've found it? ;-) I understand it as not trying to drive *actual* traffic to these porn sites, but to poison the search engines by linking to them.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:01:21 -0800

ah. riffola's link explains everything. [on preview - thanks] except that the link is to the same site. so it's a second order pagerank boost? i mean, if it were a dastardly plan to up the pagerank to a site, it'd be a link to another site, not a back-door url on the same site. oooh. aren't they nice. they won't charge my cc, they just want it to prove i'm over 18.

By: Ogre Lawless

Ogre Lawless — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:04:23 -0800

Something of a reversal, this: blogs pushing smut, not the other way around.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:10:32 -0800

think how many kittens this must be killing. they must be stopped.

By: Samsonov14

Samsonov14 — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:19:32 -0800

Anti-spam? Or pro-porn? I just don't know how to feel anymore.

By: jonah

jonah — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:30:17 -0800

funny thing is, the more attention these sites get, the better page rank they get, mission accomplished for them. the more people who "out" them, the more inbound links google finds.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:39:39 -0800

The best way to combat this crap is to ignore it, no moving up through page rankings. And everytime anyone finds a spammer/knobbo, it is illegal to NOT kill them.

By: Jairus

Jairus — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:44:54 -0800

funny thing is, the more attention these sites get, the better page rank they get, mission accomplished for them. the more people who "out" them, the more inbound links google finds. It's brilliant, really. As much as I detest the spam/pr0n hackers, I'm always impressed by their ability and resourcefulness. I have to say, I've been tempted to go over to the dark side, if only to work in a well-paying environment where ingenuity and technical know-how is appreciated. It saddens me that the general workplace environment is so cookie-cutter that working for sleazebags seems like a step up, at times.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:54:43 -0800

why does it need combatting? why does it matter that "outing" them helps them? do we really care which site comes out top if you search for porn? this isn't generating spam and it's not going to affect non-porn searches, as far as i can see. some people on the linked blogs seem pretty irate, but i can't work out why (unless it's just a puritanical porn is bad type thing).

By: Jairus

Jairus — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:58:45 -0800

Andrew: Isn't a pr0n thing. These people are spamming MT blogs via comment and referrer spam, and duplicating the layouts/code of blogs ran by people who may not want their work used by pornspammers. Not to mention, they're degrading the usefulness of services like Google/etc for everyone. There are more issues at hand, of course, but these are the ones relevant to me.

By: eilatan

eilatan — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:56:50 -0800

The only problems I'm having with these folks is that they're filling up my referrer log--5 or 6 of them the last time I looked, all from the same IP. I've been very lucky and not gotten much comment spam at all. Less than 5, total. It probably helps that I'm not really in any search engines and that no one reads my site except my friends. ;-)

By: Unxmaal

Unxmaal — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:58:00 -0800

If you're using Analog as your logfile analyzer, here's how to ignore all referrals from these sites: #excluded referrers REFEXCLUDE http://*jennifersblog.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*malixya.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*bongohome.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*a-b-l-o-g.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*kwalablog.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*wr18.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*mikesblog.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*saulem.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*akksess.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*worldnewslog.com/* REFEXCLUDE http://*teoras.com/*

By: etoile

etoile — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:22:06 -0800

I haven't been cloned - and I don't know if I should feel jealous or fortunate.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:29:16 -0800

For those of you using Dean Allen's Refer, you can paste this into the "exclude" array. (Around line 34 or thereabouts.)

$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'bloogz';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'kooqoo';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'randomcashblaster';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'multicashrandomizer';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'make-money-program';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'jennifersblog.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'malixya.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'bongohome.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'a-b-l-o-g.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'kwalablog.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'wr18.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'mikesblog.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'saulem.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'akksess.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'worldnewslog.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'teoras.com';

(On Preview I just realized I pasted in a couple of other referrer-spamming sites. Bonus for y'all.)

By: billsaysthis

billsaysthis — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:41:11 -0800

I noticed a bunch of these doofi in the referrer log of a non-profit site I manage, so brownpau, thanks for the Refer stuff. Though I wonder if these guys won't just set up a new set of sites tomorrow or next week. Hard to see the end of this battle, sadly. I still don't quite get the point of these sites linking to my little N-P and showing in the referrer log since I won't be clicking though to them and there is no public link to the referrer page for Google et al to find. Can someone explain in smaller words?

By: condour75

condour75 — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:44:00 -0800

This should work if you're using Dean Allen's refer:

$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'bongohome';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'jennifersblog';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'malixya';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'a-b-l-o-g';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'kwalablog';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'wr18.com';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'mikesblog';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'saulem';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'akksess';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'worldnewslog';
$rcfg['exclude'][] = 'teoras';

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:44:25 -0800

I prefer my smut to be purveyed in a very dainty, effeminate way, complete with frills and gimmicks and lots of lace doilies. duplicating the layouts/code of blogs ran by people who may not want their work used by pornspammers I wonder how many of them download music? ;)

By: condour75

condour75 — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:44:37 -0800

shit, sorry. didn't see it on preview.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:57:53 -0800

I don't need fake blogs; my smut is shipped daily, packed in dry ice, and totally organic.

By: Jairus

Jairus — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:14:22 -0800

I wonder how many of them download music? ;) Heh. It's not just duplication, though, it's full-on parading someone else's creative work as your own. Like Mike Batt's blatant rip-off of John Cage's 4'33. :)

By: waldo

waldo — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:54:41 -0800

Just this evening, I created the following .htaccess for my blog, after doing all of the same homework discussed here: <limit get post> order mutual-failure deny from 141.85.3.130 allow from all </limit> All of the requests to my site over the past month were from the same IP, 141.85.3.130, with all of the refering sites coming from from 141.85.3.*, mostly .100-.130. A broader block can be put in using a CIDR-style IP group, if you've found that you're getting hits from a range of IPs.

By: MegoSteve

MegoSteve — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:50:54 -0800

This thread reminds me of that Critical IP stuff.

By: leapfrog

leapfrog — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:41:35 -0800

I, for one, welcome our new smut-peddling blog copying overlords.

By: Katemonkey

Katemonkey — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:58:35 -0800

Pfft. I get all my smut from the usual blogs.

By: litlnemo

litlnemo — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:57:15 -0800

Isn't a pr0n thing. These people are spamming MT blogs via comment and referrer spam, and duplicating the layouts/code of blogs ran by people who may not want their work used by pornspammers. Not just MT blogs. I'm getting the referrer spam at Slumberland, too, and I don't run MT. But I also don't have a visible recent referrers list, so it does them no good.