Someone Doesn't Like Me...

| | Comments (4)
Not so long ago, I wrote about "Google are hiring" spammers on Twitter, and how they were apparently using "Twitter like" bird images as their avatar - one would think to make themselves look a little more "official" than someone with a "buy stuff now" image which would be a clear clue to a spammer.

I said "There's a lot of these profiles around at the moment - ignore / block the lot of them and hope Twitter gets a grip on this fresh wave of spammers..."

At the time, I thought it was obvious that I was refering to blocking them based on their message content (as opposed the images they used, however funky or generic they may be) but it seems I should have been clearer and now someone is a little grumpy about it.

It was later pointed out that the images were the new default images for Twitter profiles without an avatar - due to an error with the comments moderation, the two comments posted to that (along with a bunch of others) were lost to the void and only recently reclaimed.

No problem, article updated.

However, there's this blog entry still to address (written six days after a comment was made from a poster whose submission went AWOL) and I don't think she's very happy with me:

"I have friends with these new bird avatars and I can attest to the fact that they are not spammers. They do not deserve to be blocked and treated as if they are. They have done nothing wrong."

The image change was something I noted about the spam accounts; however, I thought the rather large clue as to who to block was in the screenshot and article title: namely, accounts spamming "Google are hiring".

googzhrz101.jpg

After all, why would you block a friend if they weren't physically sending "Google are hiring" spam given that was what the spam accounts were sending? It seems faintly ludicrous to think someone would mentally disassociate the content from the ultimate decision to block communications based purely on me mentioning the image changes, but there you go. I'll try to be clearer next time, and I guess I'll place the award on the mantelpiece...

4 Comments

Awfully big of them to give a whole six days before launching into a fullscale blogrant that incorporates assumptions, peculiar leaps of logic (why WOULD anyone with half a brain hit a block button based purely on an observation related to images INSTEAD of the messages posted?) and a wonderful "foot in mouth" golden medal which they clearly have been wanting to use for the LONGEST possible time.

fwiw, at no point did i ever think for one second that you were advising people to "block the lot of em" based purely on the image used.

it seems that some people DO need baby walking through every step of their waking lives, and so your sentence should have read thusly:

"There's a lot of these profiles around at the moment SPAMMING DUBIOUS LINKS - ignore / block the lot of them and hope Twitter gets a grip on this fresh wave of spammers...but DON'T BLOCK THEM PURELY ON THEIR IMAGES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE BONKERS AND SHOULD BE EASILY INFERRED FROM THE BLOG ENTRY THIS IS A PART OF"

of course, me being graced with a *tiny* modicum of smarts (thanks mother!) you didn't need to SPELL IT OUT in CAPITAL LETTERS just in case I happen to put on a pair of blinkers and miss the primary reason for making a blog decision - the messages and links being promoted.

Sure would be a shame if anyone did th - um, never mind.

hey there, long time reader but no time commenter.

that whole blog entry seems - quite unreasonably - to be more about a "look at me, listen to me immediately, how dare you not publish my comment and here comes retribution" style of supposed vengeance than anything related to what she appears to be fuming over.

ironic that one of the labels used is "unrealistic expectations".

Specifically, I want to highlight this:

"I had to jump through hoops to leave a comment, being forced to register, validate my email address, and then leave my comment, which was immediately placed in their moderation queue and still hasn't been posted."

"jumping through hoops" involves filling in ONE page of very brief info and completing an easy to read capatcha, then clicking the validation email and logging in. this same method of making a non-issue over registration seems to extend to her complaints regarding your initial blog post too. Nobody with any sense would use the image alone as justification for blocking.

I love that somebody complaining about an entry regarding *spammers* spends half their time criticising the very basic registration features on here *designed* to cut down on spam.

I forgot to mention that there is no way I can see of commenting on her blog entry - clicking the "comments" link simply takes you to a standalone version of the page minus anywhere to enter comments (there's a bunch of Google ads but not much else).

Even entries that seem to have comments already posted to them don't show the comments made - if there is a way to post there, it's sadly beyond me.

Nice medal, though.

okay, i'm blown away by the childishness of that blog entry. to take a sentence which is only midly ambigious at worst [[and only then if you're an idiot that can't work out the message content is the be all and end all, not images]] then turn it into the basis for an absolutely horrific rant at one of the best research blogs around is just jaw dropping.

misinterpreting something that a security blogger wrote is worth a "bad blogger award"?

Really?

Wow.

'when they were given every opportunity to [[change the text]], after being informed of the mistake.'

'Every opportunty' DOES NOT EQUAL one lost comment made to a blog, especially when it went missing.

'I am giving them this award for refusing to acknowledge or correct misinformation'

Can she give herself an award for misreading something then having a ludicrous rant about it afterwards? And seeing as its now been FULLY addressed can we presume to see her withdraw her 'hilarious' tinpot medal?

I'd leave her a comment on her site, but I guess I'd be 'hoop jumping' with blogger.coms registration system and 'forced to endure' their hideous capatcha which often looks like someone vomited on the monitor.

the fact that you can't leave a comment doesnt help either.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Christopher Boyd published on November 3, 2009 8:47 AM.

Service With A Swipe - When Support Gets Phished was the previous entry in this blog.

Fake Kaskersky Keygen Leads To Infections is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.