homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.159.11
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 93 message thread spans 4 pages: 93 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Log file dropping.
Log file referral dropping
Beachboy




msg:154443
 5:26 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

I did a site search and was not able to find anything on this topic, but check it out. Apparently this is a brand new spam technique that clearly works GREAT (at this moment) on Google.

It's similar to guestbook spamming, but sneakier and it doesn't involve guestbooks.

First of all, it's very helpful to have a domain-with-important-keywords-in-the-url.com.

This technique involves a certain very popular statistics program (and perhaps more than one.) Here's how it works:

Find a high-PR site that uses this stats program. Determine whether the statistics are publicly available (and thus subject to being crawled by Googlebot). Also assure that the monthly stats reports have PR. Install a link to that site's index page on your most important page. Click that link a sufficient number of times (or use an automated way to do it) so that your URL is assured of being displayed as one of the top 30 referrers when the current month's stats are published at that site on the first of the next month. Googlebot then crawls that stats report page, finds your domain-with-important-keywords-in-the-url.com and not only sends some PR your way but also tallies the keywords for relevancy.

I spent some hours researching some things this evening and stumbled across this technique. Believe me, it works.

You can prove this to your own satisfaction by noting the keyword-laden-adult-site-urls.com's amongst the top referrers to very unrelated websites. Go to those adult sites, check their backlinks and also note their ranking on Google.

GoogleGuy, are you taking notes?

If anyone wants the name of the stats program, just sticky me.

 

mil2k




msg:154444
 5:36 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Very creative to say the least. :)

Do sites publish such info? I would be wary to give out such stats lest my competitor sees it.

John_Creed




msg:154445
 5:37 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes I am aware of this spam technique. I'm not sure how new it is. So far it seems to only be used by certain adult/porn sites.

You don't actually have to have a permanant link to the site on your site. They normally use some kind of hitbots that spam other peoples referrers.

Once Google realizes this is going on, it's pretty easy to stop. I know what stat program you're talking about...and the good thing is, it's mostly only that one stat program which would make it easy for google to combat against.

metagod




msg:154446
 5:42 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

this technique is actually about 2 years old...

something that should never of leaked into the hands of mega spammers....

why don't you just keep these things to yourself?

Doing this can ruin peoples lives...IF you have a website you pay for bandwidth, having someone send you 30,000 FAKE impressions can make the difference between a $200 server bill and $3000 server bill..

I STRONGLY disagree with this type of irresponsible spamming...

BigDave




msg:154447
 5:49 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's an old trick, but not as good as you might think. And it works with most publically available stats programs.

My stats page is not publically available, but it has 148 links on the page. And you would have to click on that link over 100 times to be sure to make it onto that page.

Even with all those links on the page, if the page has a PR4 or more it would count as a backlink. But it would only pass about as much PR as a link from a PR1 page.

Obviously some people think it's worth their time, but it's not worth mine.

shaadi




msg:154448
 6:00 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

difference between a $200 server bill and $3000 server bill..

well said, metagod.

mil2k




msg:154449
 6:00 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now that i have thought about it , it makes perfect sense for people in adult and casino industry. They have enough returns to justify such methods. Would be expensive for any normal SEO project. This clears my mind why lots of people were complaining about getting Adult referrers. And one more reason why you should not publish your stats ;)

Beachboy




msg:154450
 6:03 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

BigDave, I am speaking of web stats pages with PR5 minimum, with no more than 30 off-site links on them. Backlinks on these adult sites show about 60 inbounds from stats pages of unrelated sites. The rest consist of just a handful of other sites with minimal PR. Suddenly these sites are ranking way high up. Including number 1 for a wide variety of highly competitive kw phrases. Offhand I'd say this technique is very effective.

John_Creed




msg:154451
 6:07 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you have a keyword-in-domain.com type of URL, doing this to a few hundred sites would be "worthwhile" to a spammer.

There is only one or two popular stats programs that keeps stats publically available and is used by both small as well as large sites. So if Google chose to, it could be blocked easily.

Since this is obviously an old technique and Google hasn't stopped it yet(Or have they?) - either it isn't a big enough problem, or the amount of boast a site gets, As BigDave mentioned, is almost not worth it.

But I still say doing this to a couple hundred sites with keyword-in-domain will give a site a big anchor text boast.

GoogleGuy




msg:154452
 6:09 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

As metagod and BigDave say, that's not really new, Beachboy. Anybody who thinks we're missing a particular stats program, send in a spam report and mention "logspam" somewhere in the comments. :)

John_Creed




msg:154453
 6:11 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

I STRONGLY disagree with this type of irresponsible spamming...

I doubt a spammer would care :-)

shaadi




msg:154454
 6:11 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Anyways I was wondering, what would one call this spam as?

logspam

Thanks, GoogleGuy.

vitaplease




msg:154455
 6:13 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

All it needs is a bit of extra overexploitation and a couple of these threads here (the latter helps the first? ;)) and its effect will be nullified.

Its been posted for a while, but not as much as guestbook signing.

Even if ranking effects are nullified, as with guestbooks, if Google shows the backlinks, people will keep doing it.

Beachboy




msg:154456
 6:13 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

It may not be new, GG, but it works. What are you doing about it?

GoogleGuy




msg:154457
 6:17 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

vitaplease, maybe we'll stop listing it in the backlinks altogether. That would help put peoples' minds at ease, I guess.

vitaplease




msg:154458
 6:34 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>vitaplease, maybe we'll stop listing it in the backlinks altogether

20% less forum 3 threads to have to index in the Google index ;)

mil2k




msg:154459
 6:54 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

20% less forum 3 threads to have to index in the Google index

You have mentioned it in a perfect way for GG to understand and care for us :)

metagod




msg:154460
 7:02 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

just poision words like stats, statistics, usage, forums, forum and so on..

and any site that I say is ok to rank well then rank it well :)

cmon, how could you afford not to!

rfgdxm1




msg:154461
 7:14 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Its been posted for a while, but not as much as guestbook signing.

>Even if ranking effects are nullified, as with guestbooks, if Google shows the backlinks, people will keep doing it.

Whether this is good or bad may depend on your point of view. I can easily imagine someone at Google who knows that guestbook and logspam isn't being counted thinking that these showing up in the backlinks is a Good Thing. They'd like the idea that spammers were wasting their time doing things that won't do them any good. If Google quits showing these in backlinks, then the spammers might switch to using other techniques Google hasn't figured out how to beat yet. However, from the point of view of people with guestbooks or publicly available stats, they'd rather Google not show these in backlinks so spammers will quit spamming them.

percentages




msg:154462
 7:27 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Using stats sites to artificially increase PR does not work (at least for sites above PR5). I've been playing with this concept for 18 months and as of today achieved practically nothing from it!

I have now given up with this method of "optimization", I don't think it has a future for Google or any other SE.

Those with PR2 sites may get a short term bump, but it won't do much good in competitive cats.

isorg




msg:154463
 8:13 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

I once tried this technique. I was really excited. Then I looked at Google's cache of the log page and turns out it had truncated it at a certain point *before* the URLs began! :-)

SEOPTI




msg:154464
 8:26 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Logspam won't work with Google.

TeofenGL




msg:154465
 5:55 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)


I have seen a slightly more interesting version of this that I don't believe has been mentioned -

it involves sending specifically malformed GETs to the server to make the desired site, let's say [f00.biz...] show up in your stats page --as a URL on your own site--, so your "Top X of XX Total URLs" table might look like this:


8 424 0.04% 5126 0.06% /blahpage.html
9 392 0.04% 6909 0.08% [f00.biz...]
10 380 0.04% 5571 0.07% /notherblahpage.html

this is taking advantage basically of the way the stats program spits out the url and the way the browser must interpret it.

but i think it's a cute little offshoot of the referrer cloud thang

Dynamoo




msg:154466
 6:19 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Frankly, you only want to put up public stats if you want to have all your traffic dissected and stolen from you.

I'm pretty sure I know which tracker we're talking about here. Probably the best way is, as GG says, to discount all the inbounds from that host. Surely this would be easy in the extreme?

Just on a technical note, I suppose you could spam the tracker without actually loading the remote page at all, just popup your own window with the stolen tracking code in.

Hmmm. Sounds like the cat's out of the bag on this one, GG.

WebGuerrilla




msg:154467
 6:31 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Using stats sites to artificially increase PR does not work (at least for sites above PR5).

It isn't about PR. It's about anchor text.

NameNick




msg:154468
 8:37 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi,

metagod wrote

Doing this can ruin peoples lives...IF you have a website you pay for bandwidth, having someone send you 30,000 FAKE impressions can make the difference between a $200 server bill and $3000 server bill..

I STRONGLY disagree with this type of irresponsible spamming...

I strongly doubt that a spammer cares about his victims server bill. In my opinion every webmaster is responsable for security and prevention of abuse. In this special case a .htaccess file and a few lines of coding should solve the problem.

NN

Beachboy




msg:154469
 9:28 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm confused, sorry.

GoogleGuy says this technique is not new. He doesn't mention whether what I have described in post #1 is known to be an effective technique, but does say Google may not display Usage Stats pages in the backlinks, if I understood him.

SEOPTI flat out says this technique does not work with Google.

WebGuerrilla seems to suggest it does work, pointing out the advantage of this technique is anchor text, as I outlined in my original post. The most successful practitioners do it with keywords-in-domains.

The evidence I have seen, involving substantial adult websites, tells me that it does work. I am unclear on the responses in this thread. What am I missing here?

AAnnAArchy




msg:154470
 9:38 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Beachboy,

I noticed the same thing a couple of days ago. The "logspamming" does seem to work, at least right now. The logs I saw were all from Nov/Dec 2002, so perhaps something about the weirdness and staleness of Dominic is allowing those sites to push to the top when they ordinarily wouldn't. The sites I noticed at #1 only had backlinks of logspam...no real other backlinks. So someone saying it's not working isn't true, at least right now.

WebGuerrilla




msg:154471
 10:24 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>What am I missing here?

The only thing you are missing is a complete undersatanding of the process. Logspam isn't generated by sites putting up a link and then clicking on the link. It is done with bots the send forged referral data.

Beachboy




msg:154472
 10:46 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thank you kind sir. :-)

This 93 message thread spans 4 pages: 93 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
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