homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.12.4
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

    
DMOZ Experiment or just another log file dropper?
Anyone know about this?
too much information




msg:474002
 2:56 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

I was going to post this in Tracking and Logging, but I am more interested in what experiment DMOZ may be running.

Has anyone heard anything about a DMOZ Experiment or did I just get hosed and I should have posted in T&L because this is a cloaked User Agent?

 

onedumbear




msg:474003
 4:33 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

i got one too,
what did yours look like too_much?
mine was something like searchsite_dmoz_experiment

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:21 pm (utc) on Dec. 20, 2003]
[edit reason] examplified [/edit]

mbauser2




msg:474004
 4:55 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

mine was something like searchexample_dmoz_experiment

That sounds more like "searchexample" is experimenting with DMOZ data, rather than a dmoz.org experiment.

(There appears to be an SEO discussion site called Search Example. Never heard of them, myself.)

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:22 pm (utc) on Dec. 20, 2003]
[edit reason] examplified [/edit]

Marcia




msg:474005
 7:01 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, I *have* heard of a couple of the people and I'm personally hardly amenable to giving any air-time. They're not "experimenting" with anything.

You've been log-spammmed, dude. That trick is older than dirt, and I ain't tellin' who invented it. ;)

too much information




msg:474006
 3:35 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

yea, that's what I thought, but you never know. It only hit my homepage so I wasn't sure.

oh well...

<added>Mine said searchexample_dmoz_experiment also</added>

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 5:22 pm (utc) on Dec. 20, 2003]
[edit reason] examplified [/edit]

toolkit




msg:474007
 10:20 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's as much log-spamming as when Googlebot or Slurp leave their calling card - just a polite notice to say what's been looking at your pages.

Marcia




msg:474008
 6:21 am on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

I really have to apologize for what might seem to be rudeness to those who may be unfamiliar with the terminology and may possibly misconstrue.

Here's a thread from a while back that's pretty self-explanatory and relates to what we're discussing here, in our now deprecated Search Engine Spider Identification forum:

A new agent or new advertisement? [webmasterworld.com]

It involved none other than our esteemed colleague and long-time member Fantomaster [webmasterworld.com], and was quite an interesting discussion.

Again, my sincere apologies for not being clearer and for not pointing out that thread to begin with. :)

chrisridings




msg:474009
 11:54 am on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Strange that Marcia, I thought you were discussing calling a legitimate and well documented spidering research experiment using a USERAGENT of an almost universally standard format and without mentioning a url but providing a contact email log spamming and not an experiment at all.

Might I ask what research you did to

a) Determine that it was log spamming
b) Determine that there was no experiment as you categorically stated?
c) Whether you would call Googlebot a log spammer

chrisridings




msg:474010
 12:02 pm on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Additionally, as I'm somebody well versed in terminology and I don't see the connection between the fantomaster thread (where a referrer is used) and your allegations then perhaps you can explain the connection?

lawman




msg:474011
 1:35 pm on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

You've been log-spammmed, dude. That trick is older than dirt, and I ain't tellin' who invented it.

My being a member at WW is proof that logfile spamming works. ;)

lawman

Marcia




msg:474012
 1:43 pm on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>without mentioning a url

*cough*

Chris, why do you think this thread was posted by our member here, in this particular forum, with that particular thread title?

Let's hear what you think about why. After you - you get to go first!

Brett_Tabke




msg:474013
 5:21 pm on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

as usual - lets leave the urls out of it. There are atleast 10 of these "experiements" running now, and there is not reason to give them air time.

lol - ya, we ran the same "experiment" 4 - or was it 5 - years ago too. As Lawman said - log spamming erm - experimenting works. Did good data come out of it? Sure did. Some we shared - most we did not. It was a good way to check servers, page sizes and other general page data.

Lots of good reading on experimenting with log file spamming and the eventual data set here in a site search on log file dropping [google.com].

What kind of click back ratio are you getting out of the log files? It used to run as much as 5% when we first started, and then quickly fell off to tenths and then thousands of a percent.

In the end, it is up to the site that got the spidering that makes the determination of whether it is spam or not. We get anywhere from 5 to 100 of these spider spam log drops a day. I don't know any webmaster who wouldn't call the 99.99% of them spam.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved