Making the rounds this week: IO Error’s critique of “nofollow”, the link add-on that was supposed to stop comment spam, but hasn’t even slowed it down. He suggests that it was never intended to: it was simply a sneaky way to lower blogs’ rankings in search engines.

Now, I don’t have a problem with the idea of being able to tack a note onto a link and tell Google not to treat it as an endorsement. But the way it’s been implemented in most blog software—blindly applying it to all links in comments—is overkill. Legitimate, useful, interesting comments should factor into the resource’s ranking, for all the reasons IO Error provides.

Where rel="nofollow" does help with comments is in devaluing the spam that slips through your filters overnight. If a search engine bot happens to crawl your page between the time the comment hits and the time you see it and remove it, nofollow will at least make the spam less effective. Of course, you only need it active for a day or two (depending on how often you check). Once you’ve cleaned the junk out, you want what’s left to get the rank boost it deserves. I’ve been using the No Nofollow plugin to do this since March.

In short, I don’t think that rel="nofollow" is a bad idea in itself. It’s just being used the wrong way.

Q: What happens when you break up/fire your web browser-developing group with years of experience, and later hire an outside firm to build your next product?

A: Netscape 8.

IEBlog has an amazing report—which I’ve just verified. Netscape 8.0.1 disables IE’s XML rendering. So if you try to load an XML document—say, an XSLT-styled RSS feed like the feed for this blog—using Internet Explorer or Netscape 8 with IE’s engine, you’ll see either a blank page or an unloaded-image icon.

Apparently every time Netscape 8 runs, it trashes a registry entry that defines how IE displays XML. At this point the only way to fix it is to uninstall Netscape 8 and delete that entry (directions at the above link).

This raises two questions:

  1. Why does Netscape 8 alter an Internet Explorer registry setting?
  2. Why can Netscape 8 alter an Internet Explorer registry setting?

I’ve said it before (though possibly not here), but Mozilla is much better off now that AOL isn’t calling the shots.

Update June 20: Netscape 8.0.2 fixes this problem.

I just can’t figure out what this message is supposed to be. My first thought was that someone was replying to spam that used a forged sender, but it scored 11 points in SpamAssassin for forged headers (it claimed to be from Yahoo, but wasn’t), a date stamp from the future, and Bayesian analysis.

From: Stock Advisor <probably fake address>
To: Stock Advisor <target address>
Subject: Go where?

>Go Away!

To top it off, it showed up in several spam traps with different subjects and senders, but the same two-word body. Maybe it’s a probe of some sort?

Opera BrowserThere’s a saying about the elephant in the room that no one will talk about. Everyone knows it’s there, but by some unspoken rule no one will mention it. I’ve noticed that when web browsers are compared, there’s one thing Opera supporters tend to ignore or downplay: Opera’s business model.

Internet Explorer and Safari are bundled with their respective operating systems, and so they’re perceived as free. Firefox is free in both the gratis and libre senses of the word. Opera, however, is ad-supported by default and will disable the ads if you pay for it.

You can use Opera without paying money, but you’re still paying it in attention (a persistent chunk of space dedicated to advertising), so in comparison to the other three leading browsers, it’s perceived as being less free. Think of it in terms of television.

So the perception of cost looks like this:

  • IE, Safari, Firefox (commercial-free TV)
  • Ad-supported Opera (network TV)
  • Paid-for Opera (cable or satellite)

Most people really do prefer free without ads to free with ads or paid subscriptions. Why else is skipping commercials one of Tivo’s most popular features?

I’m certain this impacts marketshare, and it definitely impacts media coverage. Just look at CNET’s recent IE vs. the world review. Opera 8 gets high marks for features, but what’s the summary? “Despite a ton of great technology in Opera, few consumers will be likely to pay for the app. ” Whether you think the review is otherwise fair or not, the business model clearly lowered it several notches on the reviewer’s scale.

Next: Firefox’s blind spot.

Disclaimer: I’m a regular Firefox user these days, but I’ve also paid to register Opera since version 3.5 was current back in 1999. I used Opera as my main web browser on Windows back when Netscape 4 was aging and Mozilla hadn’t yet stabilized enough to replace it.

It’s well-known that some spammers will find a way to track which email address has responded to/complained about their “messages.” Sometimes they’ll assign an ID code to each address, and sometimes they’ll just disguise it using something like ROT13. This code is then placed in the unsubscribe and purchase links, or embedded image references. (Legitimate mailing lists often use a similar technique: each message has a unique return address so that bounces can still be identified even if the message has been forwarded to another account.)

I just spotted a mortgage spammer using wildcard DNS and undisguised addresses. Suppose that the target address is ramblings@example.com, or rather ramblo@hyperborea.org, for you bots reading this. The purchase link would be http://Ramblings.h1gher.net/formupdate.asp, and the “unsubscribe” (yeah, right) link would be http://Ramblings.h1gher.net/deletion.asp.

They hit four of our spamtraps last night, two of which used unobfuscated links like this.

In the past few weeks I’ve started getting emails asking to exchange links with various websites. They don’t seem to be using templates, since each email has been different, but what they do have in common is that they have nothing to do with anything on my own site. They’ve clearly just let some program look for keywords, built a list of sites, and put webmaster@ in front of them. That’s why I consider these spam. If someone were to use the same software to identify relevant sites, then check them out before sending a “please link to me!” message, that would just be communication between webmasters.

The one case where the site looked even remotely related was someone’s collection of links to super-heroines. Well, super-heroines, female wrestlers, adult fanfic and heroine fetish pictures, but at least it was relevant, even if I couldn’t in good conscience link back to it from my comic book site. The one I got yesterday was more typical: a real estate site that wants me to link to them because the word generations appears in both their URL and the title of one page on my Flash site.

Come on, how hard would it be to actually look at the sites you’re soliciting? Do a little research, will ya?

ยปAll pages site-wide with this tag