Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Survival in the online trenches

Rated 3.49 (Ratings: 6) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(2 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of codepo8

Chris Heilmann

Member info | Full bio

User since: July 29, 2002

Last login: April 27, 2006

Articles written: 17

The Internet is an amazing thing - as a media it was and is a revolution. Everybody can participate, publishing and amending content is a matter of seconds and a lot of it is free. Let's take part, shall we?

Fame, fortune and great feedback await us, so let's put our work out there for people to find and enjoy.

Alas, it seems as soon as you publish something and allow people to comment on it or use it, you're in for a rude awakening.

Stay with us and hear a tale of the foes we have on the web. All of the upcoming characters are purely non-fictional.

Meet the army of spoilers

The professional spammer

His job is to find emails to send important things - like penis enhancement products or drugs you cannot get that cheap in the pharmacy - to them.

Countermeasures

There is not much of a remedy against the spammer. As soon as your email is readable somewhere and in the source of the page, it can and will be harvested by spam robots and you are in for a filled inbox. There are many ideas as to how to stop that - obfuscating the email via Javascript, or adding it as an image. These are effective to some degree, but could challenge usability or accessibility. A rather spam-free way to allow people to contact you is an email form. Keep the email addresses in a database and simply reference them by key. In any case, a spam filter on your mailbox is in order.

The clumsy spammer

Links make the web work. Links also make Google recognise and rank our pages. That is why some people tend to sneak in links pointing to their web sites into comments by turning random words and punctuation into links. It may or may not be that Google does follow links that have a dash or a full stop as their textual content, in any case it is a clumsy and rather pathetic try to raise awareness for your web site.

Countermeasures

Either disallow links, or display them as full text. That way the comments will be named and shamed and you can see the spamming immediately and remove the links or the full comment.

The hacker

Religious debates about Unix vs. FreeBSD vs. Windows aside - your server is constantly open to attacks by hackers or hacker wannabees. The argument "but the stuff I publish is free and I am not an evil corporation" doesn't work any longer. A server is a server and if I can hack my way into it, I can use it as an online hard disk to store data on.

Countermeasures

Don't do the server maintenance, if you don't know what you are doing. Make sure to use complex passwords and change them regularly. If you install scripts and extensions on your server, follow the instructions and do not leave scripts with names like "admin" unprotected. If the script allows it, rename them, or secure them with a password via .htaccess or equivalents.

The citizen of me-oh-me-ia

This dysfunctional breed is prone to fill comment facilities with off-topic messages pointing in their direction, an example would be: "Wow, cool article about accessible navigations. I think my web site about making little furry animals from dental floss could need it".

Furthermore, the citizens of me-oh-me-ia also have the perception that their setup is the world's: "Your script works fine on all common browsers, but my browser XYZ does not support it. Therefore it is useless".

Countermeasures

This type is more annoying than really destructive. Therefore you can either just counterargument in the comments, or, in case of serial offenders, delete them. People like these keep us from really improving our sites and adding new content, as we have to spend all that time on maintenance.

The "My help request right or wrong" user

This type has the impression that you are either all-knowing, or that you do have the inclination and time to help out no matter how unrelated the request is. "I have seen your PHP script, and I like it, how can I set up a server to run it?" or "I see you publish a lot of articles, can you tell me what laptop is the best" are typical examples. They most likely don't mean to be annoying, they just think you like helping people, and you do, but surely not with everything.

Countermeasures

As stated above, this behaviour can be due to not knowing better and misreading your nice texts as a "come on all, I'll sort you out". Therefore punishing is not really a good response. Better point them to example pages. For more on this, read "How to help and get help online". Try to be nice, breathe in and out 10 times before answering something like "Have you tried this very secret web site called Google" or "RTFM".

The bad implementer

If you publish scripts and you thought you made them idiot proof, rest assured that someone will come up with a better idiot. Either your documentation is bad, or just too extensive. A good documentation does not help, as, sad but true, people do not read them. That is why you end up with people using your scripts, failing to secure them properly and come complaining to you about "being hacked".

You can even point out 10 times that you made a template and a user does not need to know language XYZ to re-skin it, you'll still get people telling you that they can't use it as they don't know XYZ.

Countermeasures

Again, a user that you don't want to annoy too much. They are not evil, they are misled (or lazy). Point out the documentation again, if inclined, help them hands-on. Write your documentation concise and short (Step by Step examples proved to be helpful) and make your scripts check if they are insecure (is the file still called admin? Can it be written to?).

Dr. Test and Mr. Hello

This dynamic duo is always on the hunt for innocent form fields, like sign-up fields for newsletters, guestbooks or even contact forms, just to fill them with "test" or "hello" and send them off. There is no name for this fetish yet, but it seems to give them a lot of pleasure.

Countermeasures

Simply make sure you review the guestbook entries before they get published, check fields for the words above and don't submit them when that is their only content.

The all-knowing developer

This kind will comment on anything you do with a confident "I have done that years ago" and accuse you of being inefficient if you don't apply technique XYZ to the problem ABC. He will also claim having had the idea years before and didn't "feel like writing about it&34;

Countermeasures

Point out that an example is an example and that there are many ways to achieve the same goal. Also point out that less optimised examples may be necessary to explain certain techniques. Congratulate them on their greatness and tell them to start writing themselves. They'll soon realise it is not as easy as creating a perfect code solution.

Trolls

The worst of the web. Trolls are people that post only to annoy and attack others. They offend for the sake of offending and are very likely to cause long-winded, off-topic discussions if their baits were successful.

Countermeasures

Delete posts, block if possible. Keep the lid on the jar of trollnip and call Harry Potter.

"Fame's a fickle friend, Harry"

The more success your site has, or the more you publish, the more likely it is that you will encounter one or more of the above. It seems as if free speech is a nice enough concept, but only a chosen few know how to use it wisely, whereas the people abusing it are legion. The reasons might be of various nature: envy, boredom, unhappy childhood, inability to communicate in real life - you name it.

You end up using your time maintaining the comments and the contacts you get, and doing less and less for the site, unless you are lucky enough to be able to delegate that job.

Why we do it despite of all these issues? Because we can, and because we have to, to keep this wonderful new media alive.

Every comment and mail needs to be checked and tended to, so next time you feel the urge to write something about an online text you saw, think of the consequences, and try not to fall into any of the above categories.

Currently employed in London as a Lead Front End Developer, Chris has been bouncing around the globe working for several agencies and companies. A web enthusiast from 1997 on workplaces include Munich, London, Santa Monica and San Francisco. More of Chris' writings can be found at http://icant.co.uk and he blogs at http://wait-till-i.com

Develeopers of the world, REBUT !

Submitted by UnitedScripters on June 28, 2004 - 07:56.

Another typical character is the developer who enters a thread to say you're wrong while you're addressing some user questions. They seem to enjoy themselves only when they can say somebody is wrong (or the allege so, many times because they have a partial vision of the issue and either you share that partiality or you're an incompetent in their opinions...)
It seems it is typical for the low self esteem of some persons to attend newsgroups not to provide help but to tamper and make rebuttals on others who are just providing positive help to third persons.
A netiquette rule should always be: make your point, provide your suggestion, do not even mention other answers ialso f you deem them wrong or unaccurate. Make your 15 minutes of celebrity rely on your own positive contribution, not on the constant prowling for bashing against someone else.
It is even funnier when they say 'I have a duty to make sure false information is not spread around' - upon which they are able to hit on your head because you said tables do not support onClick events (anno domini 2001, when Netscape 4 still mattered). That is, they are crusaders lol.
And, of course, a positive critique cannot be the one which blasts.
Your article's well written and funny
ciao
Alberto

login or register to post comments

Bad Practice Problems

Submitted by eliteral on June 30, 2004 - 04:36.

Bad Practice Issues

It is clear that there are many different opinions about what constitutes a bad SEO practice: "spam" and "cloaking" seem to be the leaders. I present these items as generally accepted BAD practices and encourage others to submit ideas for this list as well. Some of these items were once accepted by the search engines, but have become "bad" over time as the search engines have evolved to combat their individual notions of "spam".

Transparent, hidden, misleading, and inconspicuous links -- the use of any fully transparent image for a link, the use of hidden links (possibly in DIV/LAYERs), any link associated with a graphic without words / symbols that can be interpreted as even remotely representing the effect of taking the link, or inconspicuous links like 1x1 pixel graphics or the use of links on punctuation (<a href=link> </a><a href=real-link>real words</a><a href=link>.</a>) would be "spam" and a cause for removal from a search engine index.

"Machine generated" pages - Unconditionally spam. There are products on the market that make such pages unnecessary in any case.

Cloaking - this is a very deceptive process in all circumstances unless there is no impact (deletion, formatting, or insertion) on content delivered to the visitor different than to the search engine spiders. Where the stated objective of the tool [filtering by IP number or User Agent] is to facilitate the delivery of differing content based upon visitor/search engine identification processes the implementation of cloaking technology is considered BAD. Although not all engines can detect cloaked sites, and some may choose to allow it, cloaked sites are considered spam in most cases. Google has stated that they have a tool that can detect such pages and is removing cloaked sites from their index where deception is involved.

Spam is an even broader topic and runs from white-on-white to overloading the web with "free web pages/sites developed to provide volumes of links to a site to boost popularity". I think that this category needs significant definition, but it is the most easily defined in "black and white" rules.

A new area of spam involves "external" factors such as sites with numerous, unnecessary host names, excessive cross-linking of sites to artificially inflate perceived popularity, and the inclusion of obligated links as part of an affiliate program .

                               Countermeasure: Stop SEO Practices

Editor's note: Please do not try to hide links in punctuation. It does not serve your search engine ranking and it's not respectful of the site you post on. Thank you.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.