May 23, 2004

The blog battle continues

Seen in a comment to my previous blog entry:

Personally, I'd go with b2evolution, if you want all of the features you enjoyed with MT, and more.

Of course you would Graham, you do appear to be somewhat invested in the b2evolution project (having made them graphics and running a theme site for the project).

That's a nice thing about the Internet, people can find out about possible conflicts of interest without you having to tell them.

I wrote the above about 24 hours ago. Having vented into my keyboard I decided to hold off posting; it is possible people are just trying to be helpful and not mentioning their own involvement was an oversight.

However...

I was already considering going with b2evolution, that is clear from my entry. Therefore I do not need to know what features it has becuase I have already seen them on the website.

I did a little google search for some of the text in the comment. Not much time has passed, so google hasn't had much time to index all the blogs which have been hit by this spam. At the time of writing, Google is showing three blogs all with comments using the same boilerplate marketing. It is also packed with links, but I have HTML disabled in comments on this blog so they don't show up.

I have little doubt that more will show up soon.

It is possible that b2evolution is suffering from a Joe Job, but I don't plan to use it now (for a number of reasons including this one).

I've been fiddling around with PyBlosxom. Its looking quite promising, although I need to do a bit more work before I decide if I'm going to go with it or not. It does have the big plus of generating static files.

Posted at May 23, 2004 08:26 AM (TrackBack)

Comments

David,

You seem to be offended by my last comment on your blog. I was trying to be helpful, in a "lazyweb" manner, especially by stressing the fact that I believe b2evolution would definitely solve your comment spam issues.

Also, I thought I had made it very clear I was contributing to b2evolution by using "we" all along.

You seem to almost think I am spamming/abusing your blog, but this is nothing like I would post the same comment several times on your blog and/or on completely unrelated posts.

Anyway I can understand you feel offended by me adding a little extra info to my reply. I thought it would be of some interest to your readers on the MT migration topic.

If this is offending to you, please accept my apologies and feel free to delete my comments from your blog.

Posted by: Graham at May 25, 2004 09:41 AM

The key points were the use of boilerplate text, and the fact I clearly had (and linked to) most, if not all of the information you provided.

You started out with "Personally", setting the tone of the message as coming from an average blogger rather then a contributor to the software you were pushing.

While you did use the term "We", you did so only twice.

I didn't mention this before, but you also posted a comment including a fair bit of HTML, you didn't use the preview function and then clean out the broken links. I should probably remove the option to post without preview, but its still an indication (just an indication) of a spammer.

However, I wasn't offended, your comment was not an attack against me. Somewhat annoyed, but not offended.

Posted by: David Dorward at May 25, 2004 09:57 AM