14 thoughts on “Thoughts on Weblog Comment Spam Prevention”

1. I’ve installed Spam Karma on my WordPress sites and it has completely locked out comment spam. The plugin has been running since December 10th, and not one spam comment has gotten through, nor have any legitimate comments been blocked. I’m very impressed by this handy little tool.

2. The thing I don’t understand is that much of the pagerank goodliness that would come from a link embedded in most weblogs (well, those from Blogger and MT) doesn’t contribute much anyway at this moment. This is because both Blogger and MT use an internal redirect to send visitors from the linking site to the destination URL.

   So this change doesn’t affect much as it stands now, except that it codifies an attribute that accomplishes the similar results that the initial redirect change did.

   I agree, though, that this feels to me like a “we do this and they’re winning” solution…. but I’m not quite sure what would be a more effective solution.

3. I think it’s a useful tool, although it may end up getting applied over-zealously. I’m already dreading having clients ask for every external link in their content to include it so they don’t ‘give away’ any PageRank to anyone (in the same way so many want links to open in new windows).

4. I’m not sure why the great search engines need to be involved in anit-spam at all. The contents of a spam comment, with tons of links, are so radically different from those in a normal comment that they could very easily be recognized and rejected by the weblog tool.

   This plan has no merit.

5. You’ve just echo’d my thoughts on rel=’nofollow’ exactly. I blogged about it this morning: The Perils of rel=’nofollow’

6. This solution is way more friendly than internal redirecting, simply because the URI stays clear. On the other hand, when carelessly implemented it can wreak havoc in the long run. What I’d like to see (and what I’ll eventually do) is to use nofollow for comments I haven’t reviewed yet, just to make sure the link doesn’t get picked up by Google before I can detect (manually) if it’s spam.

7. I think the proposal if rife with possible abuse. Such as i’ll only give pagerank juice to commenters I agree with vs. just legitimate comments etc. The real issue, is, at the end of the day is it better than the option we have now?

8. Perhaps the next step is comment moderation that will remove the “nofollow” tag once a comment has been approved.

9. As others have said, I question whether comment spammers will be dissuaded. First, they do an automated volume trade, so they can continue at no additonal cost regardless. I understand that tomorrow’s spammers might forego comment spam if it’s ineffective, concentrating instead on new, diabolical methods we’ve yet to see. But since the marginal cost of comment-spam production is flat, there’s a chance they’ll do comment spam in addition to whatever comes next.

   Second, I’m not convinced that PageRank is the main goal of comment spam. If I’m Googling and NastyHorseplay.com (not a live domain … yet) and its content slug bubbles atop my results, I won’t follow it anyhow. It seems more likely that links in comment spam are intended to be directly followed by human visitors — after glancing over their shoulders.

   If this is so, the interests of site owners and search engines are different. I don’t want it associated with my content, Google academically doesn’t want PageRank algorithms corrupted. As a Google user I’m unaffected.

   I could help-out the search engines by adopting their scheme, but I doubt it’d help me. And, like Steven, I’d worry about the general practice of suppressing links. Links make the Web go ’round.

   In light of that fact, I’m not sure that site owners’ expectations are realisitic. Anonymous commenting systems will draw comment spam. How can they not? Leaving aside PageRank corruption, at bottom it seems that site owners who loath comment spam will have to take individual responsiblity for blocking it.

   This is where somebody indignantly rails that the Web must be open, that anonymous, unmoderated commenting is essential. Bully for you, but that’s a choice, and I ultimately see no way to innoculate site owners from the effects of that choice.

   LQ

10. You put it just as I would have, LQ.

    Now, I think that more emphasis needs to be put into “trust”, as Steven brought up in his post. To this end, I am going to be writing some sort of WordPress plugin that will hopefully aid in this move to make the Internet a medium of trust. I see rel=”no-follow” as fitting in there somehow, I’m just not positive how yet.

    More in this space later.

11. A number of people first thought that this is the solution to all comment spam problems, but most now realise that this only has the possibility of solving referrer spam problems. Comment spam will have to be solved through some other method.

12. Stu: “Now, I think that more emphasis needs to be put into ‘trust’, as Steven brought up in his post.”

    And that’s an interesting prospect. But I think we have to acknowledge that it’s in service to site-owner convenience and nothing more.

    See, comment spam isn’t like someone spraying graffiti on your house, a matter for the police. Not with that big “Paint Me” sign on the front door.

    LQ

13. i wish i had trademarked “Wild-Westiness”….please don’t sue me for using it in my comment.

14. Interesting piece on comment spam in The Register:

    Interview with a link spammer

Comments are closed.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)