 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> OT: goo-gle spam portal conspiracy ?
There are 50 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 40 to 50.
|
Author: James SweetDate: 12:40 08-04-08
|
|
>
> I get frustrated using Google because there are so many companies and
> unnecessary links getting in the way of results on certain web pages. When
> I use other engines I get to the right web page in the first 1 or 2 result
> pages.
> Perhaps these are not really popular but they are still the ones I am
> looking for.
> OK I use some of my web pages as search items. After years of using Google
> and being listed in Google, it deleted one of my web pages for abut a year
> and a half.
> They were there in Yahoo and others, It pissed me off.
>
Install CustomizeGoogle in Firefox, I've been using it for years, I never
see any of the ads or sponsored links. Adblock blocks all the banner, flash,
and other ads, Filterset.G updater automatically updates the list of
Adblocked sites. I don't know how anyone can use the internet without that
stuff.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BruderDate: 13:04 08-04-08
|
|
In article <NdNKj.13024$lt2.6237@trndny05>,
"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I get frustrated using Google because there are so many companies and
> > unnecessary links getting in the way of results on certain web pages. When
> > I use other engines I get to the right web page in the first 1 or 2 result
> > pages.
> > Perhaps these are not really popular but they are still the ones I am
> > looking for.
> > OK I use some of my web pages as search items. After years of using Google
> > and being listed in Google, it deleted one of my web pages for abut a year
> > and a half.
> > They were there in Yahoo and others, It pissed me off.
> >
>
>
> Install CustomizeGoogle in Firefox, I've been using it for years, I never
> see any of the ads or sponsored links. Adblock blocks all the banner, flash,
> and other ads, Filterset.G updater automatically updates the list of
> Adblocked sites. I don't know how anyone can use the internet without that
> stuff.
I like my approach:
First, open up your hosts file and alias www.google-analytics.com,
ssl.google-analytics.com, pagead2.googlesyndication.com, and
pagead.googlesyndication.com to 127.0.0.1
These directly choke google's ad-revenue by preventing google from
server you an ad. They don't get paid for ads they don't serve. And it's
a numbers game - Even if they only miss out on a penny per ad, enough
people not being served the ads means they lose a lot of money. The more
folks who do this, the harder google's wallet gets hit.
Second, each and every time an ad appears, right-click and "copy image
source". Now go to your hosts file and alias the server it comes from
(The part between the "http://"; or "https://" and the next
"/") to
127.0.0.1
*ANYTHING* that ends in ".doubleclick.net" is always an ad server, and
can be safely black-holed without missing anything you're interested in
seeing. ALMOST anything that starts with "ad", "ads",
"banner", or
"banners" is an ad server that you're not interested in hearing from.
And so on...
In a surprisingly short amount of time, you'll be surfing ad-free.
--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd>; for more info
|
|
|
|
Author: defaultDate: 08:36 09-04-08
|
|
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:24:44 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> John Fields wrote:
>>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.
>>
>>
>> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till they
>> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
>>
>
>Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm Ain't half bad. Google
without the crap.
Clusty and Ask.com are pretty good too
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
|
|
|
Author: GregSDate: 09:03 09-04-08
|
|
In article <1207744078_292@isp.n>, default <default@defaulter.net> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:24:44 -0700, Joerg
><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.
>>>
>>>
>>> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till they
>>> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
>>>
>>
>>Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
>
>http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm Ain't half bad. Google
>without the crap.
>
>Clusty and Ask.com are pretty good too
I'm getting neat suggestions.
Here was my list of the majors
Google
Yahoo
Microdsoft
ASK
Altavista
Lycos
Netscape AOL
Here is another Google site http://www.searchmash.com/
I have to add Scroogle to my list.
greg
|
|
|
|
Author: GregSDate: 09:10 09-04-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: krwDate: 19:36 09-04-08
|
|
In article <ftierj$4rj$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com says...
> In article <1207744078_292@isp.n>, default <default@defaulter.net>
wrote:
> >
> >On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:24:44 -0700, Joerg
> ><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>> John Fields wrote:
> >>>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till they
> >>> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
> >
> >http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm Ain't half bad. Google
> >without the crap.
> >
> >Clusty and Ask.com are pretty good too
>
> I'm getting neat suggestions.
>
> Here was my list of the majors
>
> Google
> Yahoo
> Microdsoft
> ASK
> Altavista
> Lycos
> Netscape AOL
>
> Here is another Google site http://www.searchmash.com/
>
> I have to add Scroogle to my list.
How about Search? I rarely use anything else.
--
Keith
|
|
|
|
Author: JeffMDate: 20:01 09-04-08
|
|
krw wrote:
>How about Search? I rarely use anything else.
> Keith
Their syntax is retarted. You can't even use wildcards.
Most non-Google search engines are the same.
|
|
|
|
Author: Jeff, WB8NHVDate: 21:42 09-04-08
|
|
On Apr 6, 6:32 pm, "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jkaKj.2476$iK6.1376@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >> John Fields wrote:
> >>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.
>
> >> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till they
> >> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
>
> > Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
>
> I usewww.dogpile.com, but it uses Google as one of its engines, along with
> Yahoo Search, Live Search, and Ask.com. A long time ago I usedwww.hotbot.com, which
is still active, and uses MSN, Lycos, and Yahoo (you
> choose which one to use). I also used
Webcrawlerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebCrawler, but it uses a variety of engines,
> including Google, and it (among others) is owned by Infospace.
>
> But at least it seems like some of these alternate search engines may not
> generate any revenue for Google, and I have found them to be OK.
>
> It would probably be a good idea to stop automatically "googling", and
use
> competitor engines, and maybe see if there is another web-based email and
> usenet access company that is similar to Google but better about
> discouraging spam and porn.
>
>
>
> Take action!
>
> Paul
One other workaround for this problem is simply to abandon the
search engines altogether. I have a newsgroup reader called Free Agent
that gives me unfettered access to any newsgroup on the Internet,
including Usenet, with almost no porn or spam whatsoever to be seen. I
personally think porn and spam on newsgroups, in our e-mail inboxes,
etc. is an inexcusable waste of server space as well as bandwidth and
must be stopped, but the question is how. I've read on the Internet
where most email spam originates from Europe with faked headers (often
using horribly misspelled words in an effort to confuse spam filtering
software).
Good grief. I've been using the Internet and email for over ten years
and have never seen such a barrage of spam pour into my inbox every
day in all that time. (Takes me about ten minutes every morning to
mark the spam as junk and send it to my email client's "junk"
folder.) I never had much of a problem with spam until perhaps the
early 21st century (2002 or so). I switched to Mozilla Thunderbird as
my email client several years ago after reading about its supposedly
excellent spam filter. Turns out it works much of the time but it
isn't infallible (this is true of all spam filters). Moreover, if I
do not empty the "junk" and "trash" folders every few days it works
very poorly, if it works at all.
What ever became of the CAN-SPAM program of a few years ago? This
was supposed to have been a supposedly powerful tool in the so-called
"war on spam", but I haven't heard much about it recently. Is this
program still active?
I would also file complaints against Google for their complicity in
child
> pornography which is sometimes advertised by Google posters. And perhaps
> the FBI and FTC for allowing their customers to create denial of service
> (DOS) by spamming newsgroups.
So would I. Child pornography is illegal, of course, on Internet
newsgroups, in e-mail, or anywhere else (on YouTube, Facebook, etc).
If anyone on Google is posting such filth on Google or any search
engine, he or she will be in serious trouble with the law (and I do
mean very serious trouble) in a very short time. When, if ever, will
people get it through their heads that child porn is not allowed in
this country and will land them in jail if convicted?
Jeff Strieble, WB8NHV
Fairport Harbor, Ohio USA
|
|
|
|
Author: defaultDate: 09:33 12-04-08
|
|
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:10:05 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
wrote:
>In article <ftierj$4rj$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com
(GregS) wrote:
>>In article <1207744078_292@isp.n>, default <default@defaulter.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:24:44 -0700, Joerg
>>><notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few
groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till
they
>>>>> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
>>>
>>>http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm Ain't half bad. Google
>>>without the crap.
>>>
>>>Clusty and Ask.com are pretty good too
>>
>>I'm getting neat suggestions.
>>
>>Here was my list of the majors
>>
>>Google
>>Yahoo
>>Microdsoft
>>ASK
>>Altavista
>>Lycos
>>Netscape AOL
>>
>>Here is another Google site http://www.searchmash.com/
>>
>>I have to add Scroogle to my list.
>
>Might as well throw this in...........
>http://www.internettutorials.net/engines.html
Searchmash apparently requires scripting to be enabled. Presumably
this means attracting a lot of "urchin.js" tracking "scripties."
All
part of the wonderful world of Google (lack of) privacy.
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
|
|
|
Author: David BernierDate: 14:49 14-04-08
|
|
Jeff, WB8NHV wrote:
> On Apr 6, 6:32 pm, "Paul E. Schoen"<pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>> "Joerg"<notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in
message
>>
>> news:jkaKj.2476$iK6.1376@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>> Better yet, make it the subject and crosspost it to a few groups.
>>>> I like this one: Use any search engine other than Google till they
>>>> stop polluting USENET with porn and junk commercial SPAM
>>> Good idea. Which one would be as good as Google?
>> I usewww.dogpile.com, but it uses Google as one of its engines, along with
>> Yahoo Search, Live Search, and Ask.com. A long time ago I usedwww.hotbot.com,
which is still active, and uses MSN, Lycos, and Yahoo (you
>> choose which one to use). I also used
Webcrawlerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebCrawler, but it uses a variety of engines,
>> including Google, and it (among others) is owned by Infospace.
>>
>> But at least it seems like some of these alternate search engines may not
>> generate any revenue for Google, and I have found them to be OK.
>>
>> It would probably be a good idea to stop automatically "googling",
and use
>> competitor engines, and maybe see if there is another web-based email and
>> usenet access company that is similar to Google but better about
>> discouraging spam and porn.
>>
>>
>
>> Take action!
>>
>> Paul
>
> One other workaround for this problem is simply to abandon the
> search engines altogether. I have a newsgroup reader called Free Agent
> that gives me unfettered access to any newsgroup on the Internet,
> including Usenet, with almost no porn or spam whatsoever to be seen. I
> personally think porn and spam on newsgroups, in our e-mail inboxes,
> etc. is an inexcusable waste of server space as well as bandwidth and
> must be stopped, but the question is how. I've read on the Internet
> where most email spam originates from Europe with faked headers (often
> using horribly misspelled words in an effort to confuse spam filtering
> software).
>
> Good grief. I've been using the Internet and email for over ten years
> and have never seen such a barrage of spam pour into my inbox every
> day in all that time. (Takes me about ten minutes every morning to
> mark the spam as junk and send it to my email client's "junk"
> folder.) I never had much of a problem with spam until perhaps the
> early 21st century (2002 or so). I switched to Mozilla Thunderbird as
> my email client several years ago after reading about its supposedly
> excellent spam filter. Turns out it works much of the time but it
> isn't infallible (this is true of all spam filters). Moreover, if I
> do not empty the "junk" and "trash" folders every few days it
works
> very poorly, if it works at all.
>
> What ever became of the CAN-SPAM program of a few years ago? This
> was supposed to have been a supposedly powerful tool in the so-called
> "war on spam", but I haven't heard much about it recently. Is this
> program still active?
>
>
> I would also file complaints against Google for their complicity in
> child
>> pornography which is sometimes advertised by Google posters. And perhaps
>> the FBI and FTC for allowing their customers to create denial of service
>> (DOS) by spamming newsgroups.
>
> So would I. Child pornography is illegal, of course, on Internet
> newsgroups, in e-mail, or anywhere else (on YouTube, Facebook, etc).
> If anyone on Google is posting such filth on Google or any search
> engine, he or she will be in serious trouble with the law (and I do
> mean very serious trouble) in a very short time. When, if ever, will
> people get it through their heads that child porn is not allowed in
> this country and will land them in jail if convicted?
There's an on-going thread in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
about google-spam and what to do about it, including the possibility
(depending on how Usenet users react) of Google having
a Usenet Death Penalty (or UDP) imposed, perhaps in a few months.
Cf.:
<
http://groups.google.com.au/group/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet/browse_thread/thread/630cb
aa514946600#
>
Anything about Usenet abuse is on-topic in that unmoderated newsgroup,
i.e. < news.admin.net-abuse.usenet > .
From reading about past UDPs, they are used as a last resort, but
it happened to @Home in 2000 , Videotron around
2002 or 2003 and others. A threat of a UDP by some
deadline is also very effective.
Some commentators have said that ISPs would not dare
going along with a UDP notice against Google. I don't know;
but I think sending complaints to Google and/or
reading/posting to < news.admin.net-abuse.usenet >
is worth a try.
David Bernier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
