Keith Devens .com

Keith, I wish you are right about this.

Just a couple of points. You say that you check your comments often, so comment spam doesn't last. That really means you've given up the "right" not to have to monitor your comments. Do you really want to be maintaining your blog when you are off on holiday?

Your solution is analogous to a "Just Hit Delete" (JHD) from the email world. In the email world JHD's weakness is that the damage is already done by the time email is delivered. I accept in comment spam terms the damage may have been done, or will happen in future. (The damage being Google visiting and using your PageRank to bolster a comment spammers website "reputation").

I agree with your point that a temporary Google boost from a spammed link on your website is just that - temporary. But, look at the bigger picture. If one person can get temporary links on 1000 blogs - it evens out to maybe something like a permanent link on 50 high profile blogs. (The trough of you removing the link is counteracted by the link still existing on 999 other websites). Then its just a case of Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Also when comparing returns of email to returns of comment spam, remember email needs only 0.05% to turn a profit. Google requires far less links for a healthy increase in PageRank. If that results in a higher ranking for high-profile keywords the investment in automation is well worth it - and also a resellable spam tool.

Remember, all a comment form is is an HTML form. All a browser does with an HTML form is to url-encode it and send it to a particular URL. Anyone with a marginal knowledge of HTTP and forms can connect directly to the form action URL and bypass your form entirely. (Unless you build in a server-created hidden field type double-check that can't be easily duplicated).

I do hope you are right, otherwise comment spam is going to get very ugly.

First, as much as I like Mark's technical writings, I'm not so keen on his oft' pessimistic posts on spam and combatting spam. History is replete with examples of how the weak have organized to hammer the strong. What was more unsettling about MP's comments was the fear of reprisal. Like appeasing spammers is going to get them to stop.

I agree. I've made some changes to my own MT system and have radically reduced the spam. Those few that get through find that I make it VERY expensive for them, reporting them to their upstream providers, their affiliation sponsers, the works. I've got a few other things to do just to make sure they get the message.

In other words, I make it expensive. And here's where MP is really wrong. If each of us took action in our own variety of ways, we'd create so many moving and disimilar targets that spammers would go on to find weaker, easer marks.