A devious new form of comment spam

Share This!

I’m encountering a new breed of comment spam on my blog.

To date, comment spam has fallen into a few basic categories. There’s nonsensical spam (like .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)). There’s blatant spam (e.g., lists of Viagra sites). There’s spam designed to make you think, with the quickest of glances, that it’s legit (such as, “Great post.”)

Now, though, I’m getting spam that shows the spammer has actually read the post; the spam offers varying degrees of legitimate commentary, but includes the link to the same sites that were being promoted in the other forms of spam.

I got one today, for example, to a post I wrote a few months about about a team of Emerson students who competed in an advertising competition. The comment reads, “Thirty-three Emerson students are in Beijing this summer working for the official Olympic News Service. The students are working side-by-side with professional staff to cover Olympic events, to provide background information to the media on athletes and competitions and to create materials for the international press.”

That’s a legitimate comment, directly related to what I wrote. The name of the commenter and his URL, though, point to a pool building company. I also get these with apartment finders and other similar sites.

I’m in a quandry. Do I leave these up because they really do respond to the post? Or do I take them down because they’re blatant spam? Clearly, somebody has devised this approach as a means of defeating Akismet and other filters and getting bloggers to leave the comments untouched. They submit these comments only to older posts. It’s devious, but possibly effective.

Has anybody adopted a policy for dealing with these?

1. I’d say take down the comment if the ‘name’ (anchor text) and link are an obvious ploy to get your blog to link to something unrelated (i.e. apartment finders).

   From an SEO point of view, you don’t want to have outbound links to unrelated content.

   The only way I’d relax that rule is if the comment were truly outstanding and moved the conversation forward.  But the bar would be very very high for a comment that was obviously posted to benefit the poster (or the poster’s client) more than the community. 

   Or perhaps you should just strip out the link if it’s clearly unrelated.  Comment stays, link goes.

   Posted by PR4Pirates  on  08/18  at  01:04 PM

2. If the comment is good but the link is “bait” - I just delete the link part.

   I’m getting plenty of them too Shel.

   Posted by Mitch Joel - Twist Image  on  08/18  at  01:19 PM

3. Ahh - I was confused as well about them. I was originally leaving them, but after readying your posts and other comments, I think I would delete them. Time to review the comments again and see which ones to delete…

   Posted by Csalomonlee  on  08/18  at  01:36 PM

4. I have been receiving them for quite a while.  Most of the links go to drug treatment centers around the US.

   I just delete them

   Posted by Josh Hallett  on  08/18  at  02:01 PM

5. It’s your blog and you should decide what you want your readers to do.  Do you want them to leave your site and go to sales sites somewhere else?  Or would you like them to stay on site and participate in the discussions.

   For myself, I have provided a link for commenting that’s a “virtual introduction”, of sorts.  The whole page is set up to let others get to know me and see where I live and see some pictures of the area.  The only things offered on the page are helpful items that can be downloaded for free.  One is a book I wrote about food safety and the other is a book I wrote about keeping kids safe online.

   Posted by Angela  on  08/18  at  07:21 PM

6. Shel,

   I don’t see how you can manage that. You can’t let the spammers run your life. I say if a spammer takes the time to write a relevant comment let them have the link. And don’t rule out the possibility that someone who digs pools for a living could still be interested in your blog.

   Really enjoyed and appreciated your talk @ the NME last week on Transparency. It’s good to get reinforcement that we are doing things right and to see so many good examples.

   Now let me talk a minute about v1@gr@...

   -M

   Posted by Mike  on  08/19  at  04:40 AM

7. My vote: worthwhile comment stays, link goes. When you offer a link, you do not have control over changes to the linked site. In other words, what today might be a mostly harmless link to a pool site could be changed to a very objectionable—or malicious—site.

   When we offer links, we are opening our readers to the opportunity to advance their knowledge and/or contacts. Implicit in that is the need to provide safe links.

   We take a chance with every outside link we provide, but we have comfort doing so when we trust the professionalism and intent of the person or organization at the other end of the link.

   That lack of trust is what instinctively sets off our “spidey sense” when we see a spam message.

   Posted by Tom Keefe  on  08/19  at  05:02 AM

8. I’d alwayts though the URL link should lead to more info about the person/commenter.

   I don’t expect links to actually relate to the topic of discussion - I only click them if I think I know someone or want to find out more about the author.

   If the links don’t provide insight into the writer or the topic, then I say strip.  Sounds time consuming though.

   Could you add in some instructions before the field, stating what kinds of link are acceptable…It won’t stop spammers but might stop anyone from getting grumpy if they get stripped.

   Posted by Paula Cassin  on  08/19  at  01:43 PM

9. I’ve noticed these for a couple of months, and they are insidious. I did a little backtracking on one (a “Good job!” type comment left on one of my posts with a link leading to real estate in the area mentioned) and discovered a product for sale that assists people with creating these spammy comments automatically. Wish I’d kept THAT link, but that’s what we’re up against: more deviousness. The simple solution: check the link, delete if irrelevant.

   Posted by Sandra Friend  on  08/19  at  06:35 PM

10. Just a follow-up. Yesterday I had a comment of this sort pop up under the first post I made about podcasting. Seems their little robot is working its way through my podcasting posts, as here’s another one (SAMPLE):
    =============================================
    Author : Podcasting Directory (IP: 98.148.145.202 , cpe-98-148-145-202.socal.res.rr.com)
    E-mail : .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    URL   : http://www.podseek.net/
    Comment:
    Well said
    =============================================
    Now, even though I might have used podseek as a directory to list my podcast, the fact that they are using an automated tool to spam my blog posts kills the whole idea of taking them seriously. What are they thinking?

    Posted by Sandra Friend  on  08/20  at  12:55 AM

11. Shel:

    This is something I’ve struggled with as well. I have to take the time to ask myself whether a comment truly is spam, particularly when it does appear to to be a legitimate comment.

    In the end, if I’m just not sure, I don’t publish the comment.

    Posted by Bryan Person, LiveWorld  on  08/25  at  11:07 AM

12. I don’t get anywhere near the frequency of legit comments that you get Shel, but the spam count has risen recently.

    I used to have open comments, filtered by Spam Karma and Akismet, but now I’ve killed off trackbacks and have turned on comment moderation for everything.

    Yes, a bit more work on my part, but I enable dofollow so I feel that anyone with a worthwhile comment should get some reciprocal benefit.

    Spammers should not.

    —Brad

    Posted by Brad Grier  on  08/28  at  07:25 AM

13. Hi Shel,

    I delete these types of spam comments, the intent should be to contribute to the conversation and build a relationship with the blogger.

    Posted by John Cass  on  09/01  at  03:36 PM

14. I say take down the blatant spam, I can understand trying to slip in a link here and there, but what I cannot tolerate are the spammers that just blast crap out there for us bloggers to clean up.  It seems like most of the spammers I.Q is about equal to room temperature and I wish I could get my hands around there necks sometimes.

    Posted by Kenny Brice  on  11/14  at  10:27 PM

15. You’re in a bit of a bind. The guy obviously read your post, he obviously responded on subject, so is it really “spam”? Or do you just plain not like his home page?

    It really comes down to what your definition of spam is I suppose. I don’t think you’re really filtering spam anymore though, are you? What you’re doing is deciding who’s URL you’re willing to link, and who’s you’ve decided can’t have a link under any circumstances.

    If his comment adds value to your site, and perhaps provokes discussion, does he not deserve a link to his site, whatever it may be?

    Posted by angela walsche  on  05/01  at  09:44 PM