A fake comment with a difference

One of the less enjoyable aspects of having a blog is having to dismiss all the fake comments that are blatant attempts at getting advertising links posted onto a website for free.

Traditionally, these fake comment adverts have been distinctly feeble. Some blatantly ignore the topic - so, for instance, a post about why I don't like opera might get links for the wonders of a brand of dog food. Others go for what they presumably hope is more subtlety. They start with a bland comment, something like 'Great post, I really agree with this! You should see this too'. But the lack of direct connection to the topic you are then directed to is a giveaway, as in a post about the totally shocking contents list of something I bought at the supermarket being linked to a site selling garden lights.

Today, though, and perhaps scarily, whatever algorithm is used to select a post to put a fake comment on has finally come up with something that appears to be directly relevant to the text of the post. There was an attempt to add to one of my book reviews what appears to be download links for that book, with links headed 'Download now', 'Download full' and 'Download LINK'.

Of course I don't know if these actually are links to pirated copies of the book in question - I have no intention of clicking on one. But the fact remains that the comment looks far more legitimate than the other fakes - though the author of this pseudo-comment gave the game away by putting in a total of six links. And perhaps they should realise that no legitimate book review site would accept a comment with links to download pirate copies (or worse).

What did disappoint me was that they didn't choose one of my books as the one to award the honour of the first of these more sophisticated dodgy links. It wasn't even a review I wrote. It was a guest post by Michael Bycroft, reviewing the 2009 title Branches by the excellent Philip Ball. It's a good book, but I can't help but feel a little jealous.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog