Comments on: Commenting on spamresources http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:14:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Suzi http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43928 Fri, 22 Sep 2006 00:22:13 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43928 Recently several anti-spyware forums/websites were marked as bad due to links to bad sites in HijackThis logs. I was told at the time that Site Advisor is in the process of whitelisting security sites. This site and your wiki should be whitelisted. Recently several anti-spyware forums/websites were marked as bad due to links to bad sites in HijackThis logs. I was told at the time that Site Advisor is in the process of whitelisting security sites. This site and your wiki should be whitelisted.

]]> by: Joe http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43733 Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:11:34 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43733 The yellow link they attribute to Spamhuntress' site was due to a link on her wiki. External links on her wiki are all have the nofollow attribute. So SiteAdvisor does count nofollow links. Kelson is right, if they allowed linking to bad sites as long as nofollow was used, that would make the service far less useful. The only sites that are likely to be linking to bad sites are ones discussing spammers or ones that are so heavily spammed they no longer clean their site. The first case is exactly what Spamhuntress has, clearly the hit your site gets from linking to a bad page can be overcome. The yellow link they attribute to Spamhuntress’ site was due to a link on her wiki. External links on her wiki are all have the nofollow attribute. So SiteAdvisor does count nofollow links. Kelson is right, if they allowed linking to bad sites as long as nofollow was used, that would make the service far less useful. The only sites that are likely to be linking to bad sites are ones discussing spammers or ones that are so heavily spammed they no longer clean their site. The first case is exactly what Spamhuntress has, clearly the hit your site gets from linking to a bad page can be overcome.

]]> by: Kelson http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43677 Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:24:24 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43677 <blockquote>Does SiteAdvisor consider the NOFOLLOW attribute in its analysis?</blockquote> Why should it? NOFOLLOW is (usually) invisible to the end-user, so there's nothing to discourage a malicious site from using it on its link to malware. If they did treat it as a get-out-of-red card, it would just encourage the bad guys to start using it, thereby eliminating its value as an indicator.

Does SiteAdvisor consider the NOFOLLOW attribute in its analysis?

Why should it? NOFOLLOW is (usually) invisible to the end-user, so there’s nothing to discourage a malicious site from using it on its link to malware. If they did treat it as a get-out-of-red card, it would just encourage the bad guys to start using it, thereby eliminating its value as an indicator.

]]> by: Dan http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43543 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:42:30 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43543 Does SiteAdvisor consider the NOFOLLOW attribute in its analysis? When you list a "black hat" URL or IP, perhaps munging it in some way would prevent the warnings on SiteAdvisor. However, SiteAdvisor posted a disclaimer: "Security-related site / This is a security-related site that links, as part of its analysis, to downloads that some people consider adware, spyware or other unwanted programs." Does SiteAdvisor consider the NOFOLLOW attribute in its analysis?

When you list a “black hat” URL or IP, perhaps munging it in some way would prevent the warnings on SiteAdvisor. However, SiteAdvisor posted a disclaimer: “Security-related site / This is a security-related site that links, as part of its analysis, to downloads that some people consider adware, spyware or other unwanted programs.”

]]> by: IncrediBILL http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43378 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:53:47 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43378 Can't complain about Site Advisor as it stopped me from hitting a VERY BAD page, I was impressed. Can’t complain about Site Advisor as it stopped me from hitting a VERY BAD page, I was impressed.

]]> by: Joe http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43246 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:34:31 +0000 http://spamhuntress.com/2006/09/19/commenting-on-spamresources/#comment-43246 I have been using the SiteAdvisor Firefox extension for a while now. I really like it though I don't normally have a problem identifying bad sites myself. I mostly installed it for testing to see if I should suggest it for others. I do think it is a big help. I did sign up to be able to rate sites. I found it really can't be used against web spammers based on the rules for reporting a site and the options to choose from. They were only concerned about phishing and email spam last time I checked. Your site is now listed as green though it still shows the questionable link. I have been using the SiteAdvisor Firefox extension for a while now. I really like it though I don’t normally have a problem identifying bad sites myself. I mostly installed it for testing to see if I should suggest it for others. I do think it is a big help.

I did sign up to be able to rate sites. I found it really can’t be used against web spammers based on the rules for reporting a site and the options to choose from. They were only concerned about phishing and email spam last time I checked.

Your site is now listed as green though it still shows the questionable link.

]]>