homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
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

 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?



 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]


 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]


 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

 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]


 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.


 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. :)


 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


 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?


 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. ;)



 1:43 pm on Dec 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>without mentioning a url


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!


 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