I found an interesting comment on my website today, for the article on last-minute-skinning of a page in HTML from some Javascript. It looks pretty sane:
CT — October 5, 2009 at 22:15
Interesting stuff. I don’t relish the idea of taking the vile HTML our designers produce and creating the skin files. Nice proof of concept though – I’ll have to keep an eye out for an excuse to use it ; )
This comment, while completely adequate and relevant to the article, is spam. How do I know? First, the provided website is a classic credit-rating-improvement web portal. But should I prevent people who work in the credit spam industry from posting relevant comments on my articles? Well, there are other comments on that article, too, such as:
Tom Milsom — September 8, 2009 at 11:41
Interesting stuff. I don’t relish the idea of taking the vile HTML our designers produce and creating the skin files. Nice proof of concept though – I’ll have to keep an eye out for an excuse to use it ; )
So, it looks like the spam-bot found an earlier comment on the article, copied it verbatim, and posted it with a different link. This would ensure that, if the spam domain is fresh enough not to register as such, the Akismet spam detector would let the comment go through unscathed based on its content alone. And as a human, if I did not pay attention to the author’s website while reviewing comments, I would let it go through as well because the comment would look sane. I don’t remember comments from one month ago, and I guess many people don’t.
Everyone enjoys advertising if they are looking for, or otherwise interested in, the product being advertised. I discovered Cushy CMS because it ran an ad on The Daily WTF, and I am quite happy with the discovery because I was looking for such a product. And nobody enjoys advertising for products they don’t need—I don’t give a cheese about US credit ratings. I have limited space on my screen that I’d rather not fill up with advertising about things I do not need, and my time is even more precious than that.
This spam comment blurs the line between spam comments that are irrelevant to the discussion and point to websites irrelevant to the readers, and ham comments that are relevant to the discussion and point to websites that are relevant to the readers (by virtue of usually being run by the author of the comment and thus sharing at least some elements).
Suppose that tommorrow, someone posts an original and interesting comment on one of my articles, yet links it to a credit rating website. Should I accept the comment as such, block it, or publish it without the link?
One of the main reasons why people comment on the blogs of other people is to improve their visibility on the internet. If I post a comment on a well-known blog, hundreds and thousands of people will browse over that comment, a small percentage of these will find my writing worthy enough to follow the link and end up on my blog, and an even smaller percentage will become regulars, posting comments and subscribing to my feeds. Which is good, of course, because the more comments I get on my blog, the more interesting it becomes.
This means that commenting is often quite similar to advertising one’s own blog or website. People allow commercial advertising on their blogs (ad banners and such) to get money in return, and they allow personal blog/website advertising on their blogs to get comments in return. So, I guess if an irrelevant website was linked to by a genuinely interesting comment, I would publish that comment (of course, restrictions do apply: I would not allow all websites, just like I would not allow all ad banners).
I like the blogs with good comment advertising—where I can browse the comments and find links to interesting websites.
Recent Comments