|
10th kick applied.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
Thanks
Do not forget to comment and rate the article if it helped you by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
while (true) {
continue;
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
Thanks
Do not forget to comment and rate the article if it helped you by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great job again finding these 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well done!
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Removed message!
modified 14-Jul-15 14:32pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it spam or plagiarism? Or plagiarised spam?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It's not plagiarism: the same author for both, if you look at the left hand side of the other site page.
And I'm not convinced it's spam - it's open source, and includes the source code in a download apparently, although the downloads should be here not there.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I see, thank you for clarifying that for me.
Well the problem I had with it is that is a pure copy, word to word.
I see it as nothing more than an attempt to post a link, which is the only thing that was added from the original content.
|
|
|
|
|
Mario Z wrote: it is that is a pure copy, word to word.
That is allowed - you can post an article in several places, provided it's yours to post.
OK - it's the blurb from their website, but it's technical blurb for a free product, and while the downloads should be here rather than there, I don't have a problem with it.
Probably would have been better posted as a blog rather than an article, perhaps.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote:
That is allowed ...
Noted, also again thanks for clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
I have built an application to catch those: it searches the first 30 (or whatever number of) pages of Who's Who (sorted by Member ID Descending) and gives me all users with an edited biography, for a manual check afterwards. The results are fairly accurate: out of the 15 members it gave me, 11 are clear spammers, 2 are non-spammers and about the 2 others, I'm not sure (see the end of this message).
The 11 spammers
With spammy biography text and a spammy Homepage link.
Spammer 1[^]
Spammer 2[^]
Spammer 3[^]
Spammer 4[^]
Spammer 5[^]
Spammer 6[^]
Spammer 7[^]
Spammer 8[^]
Spammer 9[^]
Spammer 10[^]
Spammer 11[^]
The 2 cases that I wasn't sure about
Their biography only consists of a website link which they also have as Homepage link, but as the site names don't contain a spam keyword that we've seen here before, I wasn't sure about those. Please take a look.
http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Madelineqlg[^]
http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Adrienogi[^]
The quick brown ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checking the two "unsure" cases with Fiddler:
ProgramFOX wrote: http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Madelineqlg[^]
Spam. Appears to be a Polish site selling scented bin bags.
ProgramFOX wrote: http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Adrienogi[^]
Spam. A site which simply wraps another site in an <iframe>. The wrapped site is a Polish blog "about making money" - nothing more than the traditional "get rich quick" scam.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
