New blog link list

ecchi · 18-08-2005 08:38AM #1

I am about to start a link list of blogs, if you want your blog on it, go to this page:
http://www.fun-and-knowledge.com/blog-list/webmasters.shtml
and fill in the details. Listing is free, and I do not even ask for a reciprocal link (although one would be nice).

If you have friends who also run blogs, then please do them a favour and tell them about this too.

AdMMM · 18-08-2005 08:46AM

Looks a bit unprofessional

ecchi · 18-08-2005 09:22AM

Current layout is only temporary, I threw it together so that you have a place to submit to before I finish the site. I need to see how many blogs want links, and what categories I need, etc before I finalise design.

Anyway, I would have thought the important thing is how many surfers I can send you, not how "pretty" my site is. Once I have it up and running I will put links on most of my other site to the blog list. And as the traffic to all my other sites combined totals several hundred thousand uniques a day, this is what you should be looking at, no how "professional" my page design is.

mneylon · 20-08-2005 11:16AM

That's not entirely true.

Depending on which sites are listed it can have an adverse effect on Google's rankings.

There are already a large number of blog directories that can send quality traffic to blogs. Why is yours going to be better?

The layout of that site is, as was already pointed out, unprofessional looking, which means that you will not be able to attract as many people to submit their sites to it.

If you don't get many submissions you won't get indexed as quickly, which in turn means that you won't be able to send the traffic that you promise to anybody's site.

ecchi · 20-08-2005 12:31PM

Although you may be correct in saying that being linked to some sites aversely affects your Google ranking, Layout is NOT one of the things Google looks at when deciding these things. The fact that my site looks bad will not aversely effect your Google ranking, Google only penalise if you link to sites using dishonest link tricks (which I do NOT do). However Google do give less relevance to links that go to a site with a linkback. As I do NOT ask for a linkback, this means Google will give you a better PR boost from a link to my site than to another site (all other things being equal). Also, once I have a few sites listed I will put links to it from most of my other sites which should give it a fair PR score, which means Google in turn will give blogs listed on it a better PR.

RE "The layout of that site is....will not be able to attract as many people to submit their sites to it" As you seem mostly worried about Google PR this should encourage you to be listed, because Google PR is "shared out" between external links (I.E. you get a better PR boost from a site listing a hundred other sites than one listing a thousand, all other things being equal).

RE "If you don't get many submissions you won't get indexed as quickly" As I said, I will be linking to this site from most of my other sites, several of which have high PR I don't think the number of links will effect the speed of listing one bit (and Google claim that it never does under any circumstances).

RE "which in turn means that you won't be able to send the traffic that you promise to anybody's site" I take it you are either a newbie or you have not read the text on my site. The majority of traffic will come from my other sites (and at the start from traffic I will be buying). If you think that Google traffic is going to increase this by more than a couple of percent however good my Google rank is, they you need to spend a lot more time reading up on website traffic and search engines.

RE "There are already a large number of blog directories that can send quality traffic to blogs. Why is yours going to be better?" I think I covered that above. However it is a moot point. I am not trying to "knock the other guys out of business". I am trying to supply another source of traffic for bloggers, I have no desire to be the only list you use (and however good I am, you would be a fool if you only applied to be listed on my site). The more lists you are on the more traffic you will get. I am supplying you another list, another way to get MORE traffic, not an alternative method to get the same amount of traffic. You seem to have the idea that this is all a competition, that it is necessary to be good at the expense of other people. That is not my way of doing things, what I am trying to do is provide a place on one of my sites where bloggers can get new visitors. Because my site is not a "bloggers" site, this will not be the same old traffic that regularly circulates, in fact a lot of the traffic I send will be people who are new to blogging, who were on my site for some other reason and looked at the blog page because they were bored, or because they saw the word "blog" in the menu and wanted to see what it was all about. In that I do not need a link back, I am not going to make anything out of this, the traffic will be one way (from me to you).

Also you seem too hung up on Google PR. It may look nice in your CV, but it does not necessarily mean a hell of a lot more traffic. Do a Google search, go to the 1000th site listed and work down, At this depth the sites will get little or no traffic from Google. Now look at the PR on these sites. You will find plenty with a very high Google PR, but you will probably be the first person who visited them directly via a Google search.

However getting listed on plenty of link lists (mine and the others you mention) will get you traffic. If you want to get a reasonable amount of visitors to your site you want to be listed on as many as possible, not spend your time whining that the page you sign up on is not pretty enough for your shallow tastes.

Bottom line, you want to succeed, you get links on as many honest sites as possible. Agreed that if the site uses methods that Google (or Yahoo or MS Search) dislike to get traffic you should avoid them. However a quick look at the major search engine's t&c of listing will tell you what to look out for in this respect (and you should have done that before you even started writing your own blog). Also, if a site requires a link back you do have to be careful you are not linking to a site you do not want yours associated with, but a quick read of the site will tell you this. However basically if you did not read my first post on this thread and think "Goody, here is another place to get listed, I am glad I use this board" then you may as well give up blogging now.

rsynnott · 20-08-2005 04:13PM

If Google decides it's link spam, people may start vanishing off the face of the internet. So it's not for me (I like being the second result on Google for obscure things like "duck lift"

)

ecchi · 20-08-2005 04:39PM

RE : "If Google decides it's link spam" Read my last post. I point out (several times) that I do not require a link back. Google's idea of link spam is sites with a large quantity of reciprocal links (I'll link to you if you link to me type deals). If it is link spam you are worried about, then a link on my site is safer than 90% of the "other" link sites that Blacknight mentions, and is a hell of a lot safer than swapping links with another blog.

rsynnott · 20-08-2005 04:53PM

Google's idea of link spam changes a lot, and does indeed include sites with big lists of links. Do you have rel="nofollow" set?

jmcc · 30-08-2005 10:03PM

Something just doesn't look right about this. Perhaps it is the low post count or the elementary html. I'm not sure how Google would react when seeing something like a "website traffic club".

Regards...jmcc

damien · 30-08-2005 10:08PM

Or you could all shut the fck up and politely decline instead of automatically looking for something negative. Christ people, give the guy a break.

jmcc · 30-08-2005 10:26PM

damien.m wrote:

Or you could all shut the fck up and politely decline instead of automatically looking for something negative. Christ people, give the guy a break.

Because questions like these are important and require answers. The web traffic club is the kind of thing that search engine operators pay very close attention to and any connected/adjacent sites will come under close attention as well. There was some discussion of traffic purchase as it applied to Google on Webmaster World and the general consensus was that it was a bad thing for sites.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 03-09-2005 05:00PM

Sorry for those of you who have been waiting a long time for a reply. For some reason I did not get a notification email on the recent posts, and this is the first time I have been back here since my last post.

RE "I'm not sure how Google would react when seeing something like a "website traffic club"." The important question is what the link list will be like, not what "The Website Traffic Club" page looks like as that is not the site your links will be on. When Google hits that page it will probably follow the link to "The Website Traffic Club" and make a decision on listing that page (actually it is probably already listed). However since it is a hell of a lot different from the rest of the site (different layout, different title, different meta tags, and most importantly, the words it will decide as being most pertinent will be a lot different) Google will decide this is a different site to the page it came from (i.e. it will not see "The Website Traffic Club" and the blog list as the same thing). The only thing you have to worry about is if I am using some kind of "trick" to get a better listing on Google on any page on that domain. And you can find that out by simply looking at my source code. You will find everything above board and search engine friendly.

RE : "Do you have rel="nofollow" set?" If you look at the layout of the site you will see that this is not necessary. If you include things like this for no apparent reason the better search engine spiders wonder "why ?", and if they cannot find a reason are liable to think you are using it to cover something up.

RE "it is the low post count" That is because (1) I only just found this site and (2) I already post on a lot of other boards and do not have time to keep posting on all of them.

RE "the elementary HTML" Please read my previous posts. I have already said "Current layout is only temporary, I threw it together so that you have a place to submit to before I finish the site."

RE "Google's idea of link spam....include sites with big lists" Not exactly. A large list of links will reduce the PR you get (because it "shares" the PR boost out between outgoing links, so the less links there are the bigger your "share" will be). Google only consider it link spam if it decides the link exchange is just there to increase PR. The fact that I do not insist on a recip (i.e. Google will only find links back to my site on a few of the sites listed) will prevent this. Also, at the start I will not have a large number of blogs listed (at the moment some pages only have one blog listed on them) so it is the best time to be listed if you want PR. (Basic scenario: I will list this site on most of my other sites. Although I will list some of my own sites on this site, it will only be the ones that need the link, not the ones with high PR, so Google will find this site listed on several high PR sites and find not many blogs listed on my site. So the blogs listed at the start will get the highest PR boost. People who are listed later will get seen by Google on a later pass, but by then there will be a lot more blogs listed, so the PR boost for them will be minimal.)

RE: "Because questions like these are important and require answers." (N.B. this reply is a general one, NOT aimed at the poster of this statement.) There are a lot of things you should look into when linking your site. However most of the questions asked here are not the important ones. Anyone who knows anything about linking will have looked at my source code and decided from that. Most of the points raised here show a lot of newbie mistakes and belief in information that is incorrect. If I posted the correct information here you would assume I was just trying to defend my site and so not believe me. But if you do genuinely think there is something suspicious about my site (i.e. you are not just posting to keep people from listing their sites, so that you can get a better PR when your site is listed) then I strongly suggest you to spend a few weekends (i.e. at least 100 hours) surfing the 'net and reading up on search engines. You really need to know what you are doing before you totally ruin your traffic flow.

RE: "Something just doesn't look right" Hell, I bet you also watch "The X Files" and believe it is all true, don't you?

damien.m - Thanks.

jmcc · 06-09-2005 12:39AM

ecchi wrote:

The only thing you have to worry about is if I am using some kind of "trick" to get a better listing on Google on any page on that domain. And you can find that out by simply looking at my source code. You will find everything above board and search engine friendly.

Search engine operators tend to look at things a bit differently.

RE: "Something just doesn't look right" Hell, I bet you also watch "The X Files" and believe it is all true, don't you?

No. I am too busy working on domain/search algorithm design to watch "The X Files". I just checked out the other websites on the same IP and it came up as a classic bad neighbourhood IP. The problem is that while the site may be perfectly OK, others might not see it that way when they see some of the other sites/domains sharing the IP.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 06-09-2005 09:38PM

RE "Search engine operators tend to look at things a bit differently." To what?

RE "it came up as a classic bad neighbourhood IP" The IP belongs to a major hosting company. Like all major hosting companies they host all types of sites, good and bad. Google (and anyone who has any real knowledge about the Internet) are aware of this. If they penalised every site that shared an IP with bad sites they would be penalising 99% of all sites (and the other 1% would almost entirely consist of big business sites and porn sites, i.e. the type of sites who "buy" their own IP number). You say "I am too busy working on domain/search algorithm design" so you must know enough about the subject to know this. So exactly what is your "agenda"? Do you have a site in competition with me, or are you afraid that others blogers will use my site and get better hits than you, or what is it? When I thought you were just a newbie who did not know as much about the Internet as he thought he knew, I was prepared to discuss the matter with you and explain your mistakes to you. However if you create your own search algorithms then you must know enough about the business to know that most of what you said in your posts is simply wrong, so are just posting to cause trouble. Please go away and find somewhere else to be childish.

jmcc · 07-09-2005 12:47AM

ecchi wrote:

RE "Search engine operators tend to look at things a bit differently." To what?

To webmasters obviously. Search engine operators tend to be on the lookout for link swamps (sites with excessive interlinking/crosslinking) and other patterns such as clusters of closely related domain names on a single IP.

The IP belongs to a major hosting company. Like all major hosting companies they host all types of sites, good and bad.

Well I wouldn't go as far as calling it a significant hoster. But it is relatively large. If I recall correctly, it has around 6000 gTLD domains on its nameservers.

The problem is that a lot of of the 283 gTLD (approximate) sites hosted on that particular IP that your site is hosted on are porn and gambling keyword domain sites. Some content filters would block your bloglist site (page). Perhaps you are unware of all these dodgy websites hosted on the same IP as your site.

Google (and anyone who has any real knowledge about the Internet) are aware of this. If they penalised every site that shared an IP with bad sites they would be penalising 99% of all sites (and the other 1% would almost entirely consist of big business sites and porn sites, i.e. the type of sites who "buy" their own IP number).

Well the websites in com/net/org/biz/info show around 4 million distinct IPs. Sites are allocated IPs. They don't buy them per se. I don't think that you know much about the domain > website > IP aspect of the net.

Not all shared IPs host such a high number of porn and gambling related sites. It is the density of the porn and gambling keyword domains on this particular IP and its relatively low whitelist (non-porn/gambling) site count that makes it exceptional.

So exactly what is your "agenda"?

Well you seem so familiar with the "The X-Files" - guess.

Do you have a site in competition with me, or are you afraid that others blogers will use my site and get better hits than you, or what is it?

No. What worries me is that some Irish bloggers will be unaware of the kind of IP neighbourhood to which they are linking.

However if you create your own search algorithms then you must know enough about the business to know that most of what you said in your posts is simply wrong, so are just posting to cause trouble.

I am posting because your agenda is somewhat dubious. You appear here to try to get Irish bloggers to submit their details to you and you have no history of posting on this BBS. The IP on which your site is hosted also hosts a lot of porn/gambling related keyword domains. You then proceed to insult people who raise legitimate questions. Not exactly the most clueful way of going about things, is it?

Regards...jmcc

smeggle · 07-09-2005 02:27AM

Not all shared IPs host such a high number of porn and gambling related sites. It is the density of the porn and gambling keyword domains on this particular IP and its relatively low whitelist (non-porn/gambling) site count that makes it exceptional.

Which is why I like my webhost as much as I do. They do noy host anything but whitelist sites , so while I may share an i.p. I know the rest are as 'Clean' as my own stuff.

And just looking at that 'temprary site' there I wouldn't go near it or use it. Period! falls into my 'Spam' category and even as a temp design it is absolutely horrible and thats without the horrible html 4.01 which is not even declared properly.

Anyway - I still say that SEO is the biggest crock of bullS**t to be used on the net. I consistently have approx. 300k pr mnth across my sites with about 60k of those as uniques. Costs me nothing and That will increase over the winter as I tend to do more online work then and work off line during the spring/summer.
MHO is it really depends on how active the webmaster is on the site as opposed to anything else. My stats certainly support that. Spring/summer - I'm offline most of the time and have lower stats. Autumn/winter - I'm online more and my stats go up. It's a trend I've certainly noticed and the most important thing I found was when I switched from the older html 4.0/4.01 to xhtml 1.0/1.1 strict. My stats took a major jump in the upwards direction.

A lot have said that makes little difference but going from an averafe of 10-15k pr site pr mnth to 40k-50k pr site pr mnth and that was all I changed in that period has to add upto something. I'm not entirely positive but it makes sence that as every thing is upgraded and algorythms change that the newer code is going to be seen and displayed before the older code is. Like I say, I'm not going to swear to that but it makes sence to me and my stats certainly indicate that.

mneylon · 07-09-2005 02:35AM

smeggle wrote:

It's a trend I've certainly noticed and the most important thing I found was when I switched from the older html 4.0/4.01 to xhtml 1.0/1.1 strict. My stats took a major jump in the upwards direction.

A lot have said that makes little difference but going from an averafe of 10-15k pr site pr mnth to 40k-50k pr site pr mnth and that was all I changed in that period has to add upto something. I'm not entirely positive but it makes sence that as every thing is upgraded and algorythms change that the newer code is going to be seen and displayed before the older code is. Like I say, I'm not going to swear to that but it makes sence to me and my stats certainly indicate that.

And pigs fly as well....

Your choice of DTD cannot make a difference to the number of visitors on your site(s).

Valid (X)HTML is going to be more search engine friendly than non-validating code, but that is still not going to make any difference if your site is unattractive and/or has poor content.

In a previous thread you urged people to use a spiders.txt as you claimed that it "attracted" more spiders.
:eek:

ecchi · 08-09-2005 08:54AM

RE: "Search engine operators tend to be on the lookout for link swamps (sites with excessive interlinking/crosslinking)" Which is why I keep making the point that a link on my link list is better than a link swap, because I do NOT require a recip.

RE: "that particular IP that your site is hosted on are porn and gambling keyword domain sites." So ? This makes no difference to what the search engines decide when listing a site.

RE: "Some content filters would block your bloglist site" No filter blocks sites on the grounds of what is on other domains on the same IP !!!

RE: "Perhaps you are unaware of all these dodgy websites hosted on the same IP as your site." Correct, in the same way that I am unaware of the current political situation in outer Mongolia. Neither are of any interest or concern to me, and neither are are going to effect my websites or those linked to it, stop grasping at straws.

RE: "What worries me is that some Irish bloggers will be unaware of the kind of IP neighbourhood to which they are linking." Why do they need to be ? The points you make about IP's are on the same level as saying that Irish bloggers should hide their nationality. You are just being stupid.

RE: "You appear here to try to get Irish bloggers to submit their details to you and you have no history of posting on this BBS" Since when did the blogging community consist only of people who post to this board ?

RE; "You then proceed to insult people who raise legitimate questions." No, I only insult people who raise stupid points. If you read the rest of my posts you will see that I debate with people who raise legitimate questions, or at least raise questions that they consider legitimate. You however make stupid points, most of which you are aware are nonsense. And anyway my insult as you put it, was to point out that you obviously know enough about the business to know what is fact and what is fiction. I fail to see that as an insult.

RE: "I still say that SEO is the biggest crock of bullS**t to be used on the net." Although you use more forcefull language than me, that is a point I made ages ago. I said that the main point of my site was to send you traffic from my site, not to increase your Google PR.

RE: "falls into my 'Spam' category" If your definition of "spam" is "a badly designed website" then you seriously need to buy a dictionary !

RE: "I consistently have approx. 300k pr mnth across my sites ..... and my stats certainly indicate that." Yes, but however good your blog is you will not get a single hit if no one knows it exists. If you did not in the past use link lists like mine, link exchanges, and possibly that SEO that you hate so much, you stats would show no hits whatsoever.

This next point is off topic, but as Smeggle made a point about the host he used that may accidentally mislead any newbies reading this thread, and I felt I had to answer it to clarify the matter.

RE: "Which is why I like my webhost as much as I do. They do not host anything but whitelist sites" Actually that is not a good thing. The reason many hosts do not host "adult" sites is because they are a headache. Many take a large bandwidth load, and some do this in uneven patches. This means that the host has to have a very good pipeline to be able to accommodate this. If a host does not allow "adult" sites it usually means that they have done so because they are ill equipped to handle sudden surges. And if they get one from a legitimate site on their system (eg, if they were hosting a site on hurricanes, and it got a sudden surge of interest over the recent disaster) all their clients will suffer a slowdown on their sites which will loose them the more fussy surfers, or worse occasional 404s, which will loose them lots of bookmarkers who will assume it is because the site closed down. I would never put one of my commercial sites (i.e. the ones that make me a living) on any host that says "no adult sites". (And since my "just for fun" sites go on the same hosts as my "business" ones, they are equally safe).

rsynnott · 08-09-2005 11:07AM

ecchi wrote:

RE: "that particular IP that your site is hosted on are porn and gambling keyword domain sites." So ? This makes no difference to what the search engines decide when listing a site.

Do you have evidence of this or are you guessing? There's considerable anecdotal evidence that Google looks at what's hosted on the same IP, in an effort to check for incestuous linking and evaluate chances of a given site being dodgy.

ecchi wrote:

RE: "Some content filters would block your bloglist site" No filter blocks sites on the grounds of what is on other domains on the same IP !!!

Bit of a leap of faith there; such behaviour was certainly quite common at one time.

ecchi wrote:

RE: "I consistently have approx. 300k pr mnth across my sites ..... and my stats certainly indicate that." Yes, but however good your blog is you will not get a single hit if no one knows it exists. If you did not in the past use link lists like mine, link exchanges, and possibly that SEO that you hate so much, you stats would show no hits whatsoever.

I have never used a dodgy spam-site or a link exchange in my life, thank-you-so-very-much. The DMOZ is your friend

ecchi wrote:

RE: "Which is why I like my webhost as much as I do. They do not host anything but whitelist sites" Actually that is not a good thing. The reason many hosts do not host "adult" sites is because they are a headache. Many take a large bandwidth load, and some do this in uneven patches. This means that the host has to have a very good pipeline to be able to accommodate this. If a host does not allow "adult" sites it usually means that they have done so because they are ill equipped to handle sudden surges. And if they get one from a legitimate site on their system (eg, if they were hosting a site on hurricanes, and it got a sudden surge of interest over the recent disaster) all their clients will suffer a slowdown on their sites which will loose them the more fussy surfers, or worse occasional 404s, which will loose them lots of bookmarkers who will assume it is because the site closed down. I would never put one of my commercial sites (i.e. the ones that make me a living) on any host that says "no adult sites". (And since my "just for fun" sites go on the same hosts as my "business" ones, they are equally safe).

What complete nonsense. Hosting adult sites is a legal minefield, and attracts dubious characters.

rsynnott · 08-09-2005 11:09AM

Ah, a look at the OP's other sites should show us what we're dealing with, really

jmcc · 08-09-2005 05:48PM

ecchi wrote:

RE: "that particular IP that your site is hosted on are porn and gambling keyword domain sites." So ? This makes no difference to what the search engines decide when listing a site.

It makes a lot of difference especially when it comes to trust. If I remember correctly, MSN's version of Google's Page Rank is Trust Rank. Adjacent sites would play a large part in any such calculations.

RE: "Some content filters would block your bloglist site" No filter blocks sites on the grounds of what is on other domains on the same IP !!!

Content filter would block your site on the basis of some of the phrases used on the page.

RE: "Perhaps you are unaware of all these dodgy websites hosted on the same IP as your site." Correct, in the same way that I am unaware of the current political situation in outer Mongolia. Neither are of any interest or concern to me

I find it hard to believe that such an expert on the web would be unaware of his IP environment.

RE: "What worries me is that some Irish bloggers will be unaware of the kind of IP neighbourhood to which they are linking." Why do they need to be ? The points you make about IP's are on the same level as saying that Irish bloggers should hide their nationality.

No. The point I am making is that having links in a dodgy IP neighbourhood is bad and worse when other people find out.

RE; "You then proceed to insult people who raise legitimate questions." No, I only insult people who raise stupid points.

The points might seem stupid to you but in reality, many of them are not so stupid when taken in context. Smeggle made the whitelist point clearer:

RE: "Which is why I like my webhost as much as I do. They do not host anything but whitelist sites" Actually that is not a good thing.

In reality a hoster with whitelist only sites is potentially a more trustworthy hoster than a hoster with predominantly blacklist websites. A site with predominantly blacklist websites may not particularly care about what it hosts.

The reason many hosts do not host "adult" sites is because they are a headache.

Not least because of the legal problems that rsynnott pointed out. Some countries, such as Ireland, do not have the same attitudes to adult sites and gambling as the US or some East European countries. That is why there is a relatively low number of adult sites hosted on Irish IP space.

I just checked all gTLD domains hosted on the nameservers of the hoster that hosts your site. From just looking at the lists, (around 6000 domains), the hoster is a predominantly "adult" site hoster (moreso than gambling) with some very dubious (from a legal viewpoint) domains. But then I'm sure you are aware that it is a predominantly "adult" site hoster.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 08-09-2005 05:55PM

RE: "Do you have evidence of this or are you guessing?" In the case of Google and Dmoz, they have actually stated it. In the case of all the other SE's, only that some of my other sites (that are on the same IP) get good search engine traffic, and on Yahoo (the only other SE ever I check my rank on) I have got a first page listing on some search words (out of tens of thousands of results).

RE: "such behaviour was certainly quite common at one time." I would really love to know where you got this information. You are saying that at one time it was common for filters to block nearly all "clean" sites simply because their IP was shared by "adult" sites ? Oh come on, that would make the filters totally useless !

RE: "I have never used .... The DMOZ is your friend" Dmoz do not send the sort of traffic you claim to get. (Aside for newbies; Also note that Dmoz is very slow at indexing, the last statement I heard from them was that it could take over a year for a blog to get listed. However that was some time back, they could have got quicker, or slower since then. Also they are no longer a major player. Google and Microsoft, have taken most of their major clients, and Yahoo has stopped using them as a back up.)

RE: "What complete nonsense. Hosting adult sites is a legal minefield, and attracts dubious characters." Actually it is not nonsense, but considering the lack of logic in your first two points, I doubt if I could convince you with facts. As to "Hosting adult sites is a legal minefield", this is true. However it reinforces my point (The less "professional" hosts avoid "adult" sites because they cannot afford the legal advice necessary, and if they cannot afford the legal advice, how the hell do you expect them to cope if hit by a cash flow problem, other than by going bankrupt and leaving you with your site down for a few days while you transfer to a new host, then wait for the DNS changes to propagate).

jmcc · 08-09-2005 06:12PM

ecchi wrote:

RE: "such behaviour was certainly quite common at one time." I would really love to know where you got this information. You are saying that at one time it was common for filters to block nearly all "clean" sites simply because their IP was shared by "adult" sites ? Oh come on, that would make the filters totally useless !

From what I can see, it is not so much a problem of blocking "clean" sites as much as actually finding them in the morass of adult related sites that your hoster has on its nameservers. Simplistically, it would be easy for a content filtering company to base its blocking algorithms on the number of adult/gambling related keywords in domains hosted on specific IPs or on hosters in general. In this case, where the count of adult related domains on the hoster is so high, it would immediately trigger such a filter.

However it reinforces my point (The less "professional" hosts avoid "adult" sites because they cannot afford the legal advice necessary,

It is not a question of affording legal advice. Legal advice is irrelevant when a hosted site has content that is contrary to the laws of the hoster's country. It is not a question of professionalism or otherwise.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 08-09-2005 06:45PM

(Sorry jmcc, I was not ignoring your post, I did not notice that the thread had stretched to two pages.)

RE: "It makes a lot of difference especially when it comes to trust." It does not make any difference to Google, Dmoz or Yahoo, I cannot say for certain about MSN as I do not actively check them. However I doubt if they would do that because it would make their results very unreliable, and they would not be as big as they are (also it would bring the Microsoft name down, which they would never countenance).

RE: "Content filter would block your site on the basis of some of the phrases used on the page." That is exactly how most of them work, I am not arguing with that. If you have a blog with forbidden phrases on it, they will block them, end of story (some use complex algorithms but it is sort of the same thing). The point I was arguing with was that someone claimed that they would look up all sites that link to your blog, then check that site's IP, check other sites on that IP, and block your blog if the forbidden phrase was on ANOTHER site on the same IP that the site that contained a link to your site was on. This is clearly nonsense, not only would this mean that they block 95% of all sites, but how would they know what sites contain a link to your blog if your blog did not contain a recip.

RE: "I find it hard to believe that such an expert on the web would be unaware of his IP environment." Contrary to common belief not all web designers are "anoraks" I spend about 70 hours a week on the computer, and already have RSI. I am not about to spend more time looking into something of no importance just for the fun of knowing it. I am a web designer not a hacker (using hacker in the old sense of the word).

RE: "The point I am making is that having links in a dodgy IP neighbourhood is bad and worse when other people find out." Ignoring the fact that 99% of people who just read blogs have no idea how to reverse look up an IP, do you really think anyone who actually can will look up all the sites that link to your blog, look up the IP of each and every one of those sites, and then judge you on those results ? I doubt if even the most anally retentive person on the planet has the time to do all this (and if they do, then they are a nutter, you are better off without them before they complain that your blog is stealing their brainwaves).

RE: "points might seem stupid to you but in reality, many of them are not so stupid when taken in context. Smeggle made the whitelist point clearer" This one I love. You win a prize for this point. First you say that your points are not stupid, then you say that Smeggle cleared up the whitelist point by saying that his site is on a host that does not host "adult" sites. So your idea of a sensible point is that Because Smeggle does it, that shows it is the right thing to do ?????

RE: "A site with predominantly blacklist websites may not particularly care about what it hosts." And you think just because a host does not host "adult" sites his sites are OK ? Wow, I have some prime swamp land to sell as building land, can I interest you in some? It is really good value.

RE: "Some countries, such as Ireland, do not have the same attitudes to adult sites and gambling as the US or some East European countries." That I'll take your word for, I have never looked into it. However I fail to see what it has to do with being listed on a link list.

RE: "I just checked all gTLD domains hosted on the nameservers of the hoster that hosts your site.....But then I'm sure that you are aware of this." No but again I'll take your word for this. I actually have a life, I don't have to fill my empty hours looking up information that is of no interest to me and makes no difference to anything or anyone (except obviously you).

ecchi · 08-09-2005 07:00PM

(sorry again, your last post came in while I was typing my last reply.)

RE: " it would be easy for a content filtering company to base its blocking algorithms on the number of adult/gambling related keywords in domains hosted on specific IPs or on hosters in general." And you actually believe they do this ? More to the point, you actually think many people would use them if they did this ? In the unlikely event that any filter actually did this, the company would be bankrupt before it even got off the ground.

RE: "......when a hosted site has content that is contrary to the laws of the hoster's country....." True, but again what the hell has this got to do with anything ? I could understand your point if my sites were hosted in somewhere like China or Saudi Arabia where porn is illegal, but they are not. Over many years of using several different hosts I am using the best ones that I have been able to find (I spread my sites over two hosts in case there is a problem with one, then I can quickly switch them all to the other one). Both hosts (including this one) are hosted in Europe. The sites are not illegal where the host is, he/she is doing nothing illegal or even a bit dodgy.

ecchi · 08-09-2005 07:21PM

(Before reading this please note that I am only referring to the more recent posts that appear to have been made up for the sake of something to say. Although I disagree with most of the earlier posters, they believed what they said, and I would fight for their right to post it.)

Over the last few posts, the comments have got sillier and sillier. Now I personally have no problem with people making these posts, because every time they do the thread gets bumped again, and more people see my initial post. And I have no objection to the fact that most of the points people have raised in the last few posts are either very (and obviously to anyone who thinks about it) wrong, or just plain daft (even if you don't think about it too hard), because "daft" arguments make me look cleverer by comparison (and it also does my ego good). However please think of the integrity of this board.

If you are going to continue posting (and if you feel strongly you should do so) please check your facts before posting. Please also think about what you are saying, and make sure it makes sense. Remember, people who read these posts are not going to automatically believe you (or me, or anyone who posts, for that matter). Most people will think about what you say before accepting it, and if you say something that is as divorced from reality as the last few of these posts have been, it is you that is going to look stupid.

And more importantly remember that newbies also read this board, who do not yet know enough to know you are posting nonsense for the sake of posting. They may believe you, and screw up their blogs on the basis of the misinformation you give them.

jmcc · 08-09-2005 07:23PM

ecchi wrote:

And you actually believe they do this ? More to the point, you actually think many people would use them if they did this ? In the unlikely event that any filter actually did this, the company would be bankrupt before it even got off the ground.

Content filter companies sell their software and lists to businesses rather than to individuals. These businesses are not there to provide access to adult and gambling related sites for their employees. So therefore these content filter companies do actually block sites based on the domain name having adult/gambling keywords and also on phrases in the page content of the sites. It is not a question of believing that they do this, it is a case of knowing that they do this. Blocking keyword rich domains is one of the simplest and easiest methods of content filtering.

RE: "......when a hosted site has content that is contrary to the laws of the hoster's country....." True, but again what the hell has this got to do with anything ?

The point was mainly about adult related sites hosted on Irish IP space. Since the legality of some of these sites is in question, it would be very risky for an Irish hoster to host them locally. Some Irish hosters host them outside of the jurisdiction and on non-Irish IP space instead.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 08-09-2005 07:40PM

RE: "Content filter companies sell their software and lists to businesses rather than to individuals" Probably, but companies have to be even more careful, so what I said applies doubly for them. Also corporate software tends to be a lot more expensive, so is expected to be a lot more accurate.

RE: "Blocking keyword rich domains is one of the simplest and easiest methods of content filtering." True, but "simplest and easiest" does not sell software, "accurate and reliable" does. Any filter company still in business would not use your method. Anyway, we were talking about filtering on IP's not Domains, which is neither the "simplest and easiest" method, nor the "accurate and reliable" method. So what has your point got to do with anything ?

RE: "The point was mainly about adult related sites hosted on Irish IP space...." Again, what has this got to do with anything ? Your original point (way way back) was that Google et al would penalise your blog if you were listed on a site whose host also hosted adult sites. Are you now saying that you agree with me and that it does not matter ?

From the speed your post followed mine, I would guess that you did not get a chance to read my last post before posting this one. If you have missed it, please could you read it now - thanks.

jmcc · 08-09-2005 07:51PM

ecchi wrote:

RE: "It makes a lot of difference especially when it comes to trust." It does not make any difference to Google, Dmoz or Yahoo, I cannot say for certain about MSN as I do not actively check them. However I doubt if they would do that because it would make their results very unreliable, and they would not be as big as they are (also it would bring the Microsoft name down, which they would never countenance).

It does not make much difference for Google now. But it will be forced to innovate and the trustworthy site angle is one that search engine operators are going to pay a lot more attention to in the next year or so.

The point I was arguing with was that someone claimed that they would look up all sites that link to your blog, then check that site's IP, check other sites on that IP, and block your blog if the forbidden phrase was on ANOTHER site on the same IP that the site that contained a link to your site was on. This is clearly nonsense, not only would this mean that they block 95% of all sites, but how would they know what sites contain a link to your blog if your blog did not contain a recip.

While not getting into this argument, it is really a lot easier than you think. Building the link model of a site only takes a few seconds at most and there are some simple algorithms that can be applied. Spam blogs are a problem with search indices at the moment and some techniques of identifying these splogs involve a similar approach.

RE: "The point I am making is that having links in a dodgy IP neighbourhood is bad and worse when other people find out." Ignoring the fact that 99% of people who just read blogs have no idea how to reverse look up an IP, do you really think anyone who actually can will look up all the sites that link to your blog, look up the IP of each and every one of those sites, and then judge you on those results ?

Don't underestimate your audience. Some bloggers are smart enough to do that. And the idea of other blogs having links to a dodgy IP neighbourhood would probably trigger a lot of posts. Blogs are often more like gossip than a forum.

First you say that your points are not stupid, then you say that Smeggle cleared up the whitelist point by saying that his site is on a host that does not host "adult" sites. So your idea of a sensible point is that Because Smeggle does it, that shows it is the right thing to do ?

No. Because Smeggle is a webmaster and like many other webmasters tends to be careful about where his sites are hosted. Some businesses tend to get very worried if their sites are hosted on an adult hoster and most professional webmasters tend to be aware of this. It would be very easy for the competition to point out to a business that its website is being hosted on an adult hoster and thus poach the client.

RE: "I just checked all gTLD domains hosted on the nameservers of the hoster that hosts your site.....But then I'm sure that you are aware of this." No but again I'll take your word for this. I actually have a life, I don't have to fill my empty hours looking up information that is of no interest to me and makes no difference to anything or anyone (except obviously you).

I did mention that I work on developing domain/search algorithms. My dataset just happens to be the internet. That means that I have access to databases of this kind of information and so looking it up often as simple as entering a hoster name or IP.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc · 08-09-2005 07:57PM

ecchi wrote:

Also corporate software tends to be a lot more expensive, so is expected to be a lot more accurate.

It would be nice if that was true. But marketing covers a multitude of inaccuracies.

RE: "Blocking keyword rich domains is one of the simplest and easiest methods of content filtering." True, but "simplest and easiest" does not sell software, "accurate and reliable" does. Any filter company still in business would not use your method.

That is just one method. It is also the easiest way of reducing the number of sites that have to be checked for keywords in the page content. I don't think that the businesses that pay for content filtering software will be too upset if entire adult hosters get blocked. The marketing image is often at odds with the technological reality.

Regards...jmcc

ecchi · 08-09-2005 08:38PM

RE: "It would be nice if that was true. But marketing covers a multitude of inaccuracies." True, but no one deliberately puts these inaccuracies in software, and no one is going to spend money paying developers to deliberately put these inaccuracies in, as you contend.

RE: "the businesses that pay for content filtering software will be too upset if entire adult hosters get blocked" Remind me never to hire you as a software developer - they won't just be upset, they will be furious. What if their clients are on that server, or their competition (who they do not want to get ahead of them without them knowing). Having an entire host blocked could cost them a fortune !

RE: "It does not make much difference for Google now....." Please think before you post. This would make most searches wildly inaccurate So you are saying that to keep it's market lead Google will make it's searches less accurate. Think, Think, Think, then post.

RE: "it is really a lot easier than you think...." I have never tried it so I'll take your word for this (although it would require the software to have a constantly updated database of every link on every website on the Internet, so I doubt it). However, the same thing applies here as I said about Google. It would make the software a lot less accurate than the competition. Do you really think any software house will survive (or even countenance) deliberately making their software inferior to the competition. Again - Think, Think, Think, then post.

RE: "Don't underestimate your audience" I'm not, I'm assuming that the 1% (or whatever percentage you think are capable of this) are not so sad and anally retentive to do this. And even if they are, these are the type of surfer you want to avoid. If someone really thinks it important to do this thing, and decide that you are OK, so stay, think what stupid comments they will post on your blog over time. If you get the nutter on your bus, everyone will jump off and get on another bus.

RE: "I did mention that I work on developing domain/search algorithms....." OK, so that explains why you have the information, but it does not explain why you think I, or anyone else should have this information, or even care about it. So why keep inferring that in some magical way it makes getting linked a bad thing. As I said before, please don't just post for the sake of posting. Even if you have "problems" with me, think of the integrity of the board.

RE: "It would be very easy for the competition to point out to a business that its website is being hosted on an adult hoster and thus poach the client." In blogging the competition is other bloggers. If this is the way you see blogging, I think that says more about you than you really want us to know. It also explains the reason for your post on these threads. I asked ages ago If you were posting simply to stop other people from using my link list to prevent them from getting more hits than you. I guess we now have the answer.

New blog link list

Comments