More Referral Spam

Forum Moderators: DixonJones

Message Too Old, No Replies

More Referral Spam

Yet another reason not to have your referrals listed

Chris_m

3:12 am on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Fond this in my logs a few mintues ago:


Host: 168.10.31.4 
Url: /
Referer: http://www.joe2004.com 
Agent: StarProse Referrer Advertising System 2004

This will not ake me vote for him.

corpuscle

2:11 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I got that too - on a new site which has only been up a day, so I think they're doing it by IP address.

It's quite unbelievable. I mean, this is a presidential candidate. The marketing company is going to proudly announce it delivered <somenumber> of hits to the website and claim their "campaign" was a great success.

And who will be visiting the site as a result? Irritated, tech-savvy, log-reading people who know all about referrer spam and who will now have a lower opinion of the candidate than they would have had otherwise.

This is perhaps the most cynical abuse of a client's technical ignorance that I have seen from a marketing firm. I wonder if the Republicans paid them to do it.

Yidaki

2:15 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

He'll not only benefit from some spammed logs but also from a WebmasterWorld link now. Can you imagine what his traffic will look like now? ...

The best way to deal with log spammers is not talking about them.

pendanticist

3:27 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I say, if you like being used by anyone in the world who takes a fancy to this crap, then keep your head in the sand.

Last week, the new one was supposed to be a band TranSGeniKBot [webmasterworld.com] and now we're talking about politicians using this tactic? They are about the most throw-away group in the US! Least ways, a band has a better chance of survival.

Log Spamming here at WebmasterWorld alone [google.com].

Look 'em over.

Makes no difference if you have your referrals listed or not, you will be log-spammed and you will get spammed repeatedly......

Just because an individual may 'be somebody' does NOT give them license to do their deeds on our websites. These chumps are no better than hackers who deface the front end.

Oh, and don't wait too long for your flowers. Mine hadn't come either. ;)

Yidaki

3:34 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

>keep your head in the sand

You're not talking to me dude, or ...?

If ya think dropping the url of the log spammers here at the hightest traffic forums on the web is ok, i'd seriously think about starting log spamming myself. ;) Think about the marketing you do for these chaps - for free. They must laugh their a** off ...

BlueSky

4:18 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why not send copies of your logs to the news media. If he spams mine, I am. We don't need a log spammer in the whitehouse to replace the joker we have now.

pendanticist

4:53 pm on Jan 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I equate burying ones head in the sand to statements such as this, yes.

>The best way to deal with log spammers is not talking about them.

However, if you meant to say "the best way to deal with log spammers is not posting clickable links that take visitors to them", then I'd agree.

Me, in favor of log spammers?

[webmasterworld.com...]

Nah!

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum11/1680.htm posted with Style Codes BOLD tags placed between ":" and "/" to render it non-clickable and yet easy to copy and paste while NOT leaving a trail from WebmasterWorld.