Free Tool To Prevent Google SideWiki Comments Being Seen

[GuerrillaIM]

A friend of mine has written up some code to stop google wiki comments being seen.

It doesn't invlove any uploads, just a single line of code added to your page (or your header file for wordpress).

Here is link: Stop Google Side Wiki Spam | Free Tool

If you go to that page and try to leave/view a sidewiki message then you should see it working.

I am not sure if this will effect your SEO or not so use it at your own risk, but it does stop the comments being seen well so it's ideal if your traffic doesn't come from natural listings.

[thegamecat]

What a coincdence, just added this to my site and it's working like a dream!!!

Gotta through and add it to my others, wont take long as they're all wordpress and drupal sites.

[pcpupil]

Where do we put this code,between the hi tags,or where?
Also,the header file,do you mean where we open up the files and the code can be seen?Where do we put it there?
Matt

[wirelessgeek]

Um. From the look of the code, I would add this right after the <title>...</title> tag. That's if you code your own website.

P.S. If anybody knows how to add this to a Webs.com page I would much appreciate it.

[yyww2008]

thanks for your help！

[GuerrillaIM]

You can place it anywhere on the page but on my blog I have placed it after the <title> tag.

To do this in WP go to appearance -> editor -> header.php

Then put the code in. I'm not familiar with webs.com but I will have a look.

PS. Please pay attention to warning that we don't know how SEO friendly this code is. We are working on testing it and making it 100% SEO friendly but be careful adding it to sites that rely of natural listings.

[ZorroCat]

Has anybody tested this in IE?

My programmers looked at this and said the problematic thing about it is that it's a 3rd party Javascript from a foreign domain accessing the window.location object which could lead to an "access denied" error in IE.

Kind regards,
Zorro (who thinks it might be a better idea to collaborate on this, to develop ideas and code out in the open instead of obfuscating and locking down things)

[GuerrillaIM]

Hi Zorro,

Have you experienced an access denied error? We tested it and didn't have any errors.

[Catalin Ionescu]

Hi,

As I was mentioning in your other thread, it is very kind of you to host the JS on your own site and pay for the traffic from your own pocket.

However, from the webmasters perspective, there are a number of potential problems, one of which being the "access denied" mentioned above. In IE it depends on the current security settings on the end user computer.

But the biggest issue I see with this approach is if your site goes down for any reason, or gets slow, it will affect thousands of sites which rely on the JS file being there. And it leaves them unprotected, without even knowing it's happening.

That's why I will always suggest people to download the JS file and upload it to their own website, even if it takes 3 more minutes out of their time.

Sincerely,
Catalin

[thegamecat]

These guys have said they will update the code as changes occur and I'm absolutely sure this app will change so a hosted solution is so much better - one change for life - not change change change change.

I guess you wanna sell a WSO or something though so you go ahead, both methods work great.

[GuerrillaIM]

Like I said, we are working on another method but it is not ready yet. My server is extremely unlikely to go down. Hasn't happened in last 4 years, but there is always a first I guess.

[ramone_johnny]

Is this the code that the actual warrior forum is using here??? If not what are they using here - because its working.

[GuerrillaIM]

Yes, it looks like Allen is apending a random hash to each page so it works exactly the same way.

[Catalin Ionescu]

The script used on Warrior Forum is based on a similar idea, although the implementation is completely different and has a few safety precautions built in.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by ZorroCat

Has anybody tested this in IE?

My programmers looked at this and said the problematic thing about it is that it's a 3rd party Javascript from a foreign domain accessing the window.location object which could lead to an "access denied" error in IE.

Kind regards,
Zorro (who thinks it might be a better idea to collaborate on this, to develop ideas and code out in the open instead of obfuscating and locking down things)

Here's one that is being given away in another thread that you upload the javascript to your own root directory

for sidewiki-defeat.zip
1) Upload the js file to your web server.
2) Insert this line right after your opening <head> tag:
<script type="text/javascript" src="path-to-your-uploaded-file/sidewiki-defeat.js"></script>

Catalin Ionescu has also created one that you upload the javascript to your own server. I have beta tested that one and it works very well.

[GuerrillaIM]

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

The script used on Warrior Forum is based on a similar idea, although the implementation is completely different and has a few safety precautions built in.

Our script will be updated soon with similar feature.

[TristanPerry]

Originally Posted by ZorroCat

Has anybody tested this in IE?

My programmers looked at this and said the problematic thing about it is that it's a 3rd party Javascript from a foreign domain accessing the window.location object which could lead to an "access denied" error in IE.

Kind regards,
Zorro (who thinks it might be a better idea to collaborate on this, to develop ideas and code out in the open instead of obfuscating and locking down things)

Just host the file yourself then...

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Is this the code that the actual warrior forum is using here??? If not what are they using here - because its working.

Imagine that, A forum blocking comments.

[thegamecat]

lol,it's the priciple and likelihood of defammation that causes the blocking of something beyond our control.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Imagine that, A forum blocking comments.

You see that WSO in your sig?

I can promise you that there are comments you'd like to see blocked...

Think about it.

[bgmacaw]

Great, 500+ domains to update thanks to Google's latest brainfart.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by admin

You see that WSO in your sig?

I can promise you that there are comments you'd like to see blocked...

Think about it.

Thanks but if there is anything untrue or derogatory, you simply could have reported it. I did that for another Warrior member here too, and it was immediately removed.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by admin

You see that WSO in your sig?

I can promise you that there are comments you'd like to see blocked...

Think about it.

Not to be contrary but because of the way he and some others have linked to their WSOs using the post# the script isn't working and SideWiki is not being blocked on these posts when the link in the signature is clicked.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Imagine that, A forum blocking comments.

That's one way to look at it.

Or you could say "Why the hell does a forum need SideWiki - we have a way to post comments already built in."

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by ptone

That's one way to look at it.

Or you could say "Why the hell does a forum need SideWiki - we have a way to post comments already built in."

Actually for a forum full of webmasters with a big hate-on for SideWiki, I would have blocked it too! I just thought it was kind of amusing that a "forum" went out of its way to block external comments.

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Here's one that is being given away in another thread that you upload the javascript to your own root directory

for sidewiki-defeat.zip
1) Upload the js file to your web server.
2) Insert this line right after your opening <head> tag:
<script type="text/javascript" src="path-to-your-uploaded-file/sidewiki-defeat.js"></script>

Catalin Ionescu has also created one that you upload the javascript to your own server. I have beta tested that one and it works very well.

If I have a plain html site, but also a Wordpress blog on the subdirectory of mysite.com/blog will installing this script on my main index.html page work throughout the whole site or will I also have to put it in the blog header.php file?

[LIndaB]

If I have a plain html site, but also a Wordpress blog on the subdirectory of mysite.com/blog will installing this script on my main index.html page work throughout the whole site or will I also have to put it in the blog header.php file?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you'll have to put it on every page of a plain html site. Plus put it in the header of your WP blog.

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by LIndaB

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you'll have to put it on every page of a plain html site. Plus put it in the header of your WP blog.

Thanks. That's what I thought.

It's easy enough with the html pages, but php scares me. My header.php looks like this;

<head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="<?php bloginfo('html_type'); ?>; charset=<?php bloginfo('charset'); ?>" />
<meta name="distribution" content="global" />
<meta name="robots" content="follow, all" />

So am I correct in assuming that <head profile> is the same thing as <head> and I would just place the script code before the <head profile> tag?

[GuerrillaIM]

Originally Posted by Pat Jackson

Thanks. That's what I thought.

It's easy enough with the html pages, but php scares me. My header.php looks like this;

<head profile="http://gmpg.org/xfn/11">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="<?php bloginfo('html_type'); ?>; charset=<?php bloginfo('charset'); ?>" />
<meta name="distribution" content="global" />
<meta name="robots" content="follow, all" />

So am I correct in assuming that <head profile> is the same thing as <head> and I would just place the script code before the <head profile> tag?

No, you want to add it inside head tag. Look for <title></title> and put it in directly after that.

[David McKee]

The script creates a random new url each time the page is hit, so in WP you really do need to put it in the header.php of your theme.


Perhaps somene should shoot Robert Plank an email and see if he has a dime sale going yet on Sidewiki blocks

--DTM

--UPDATE: Never-mind Robert Plank, I did it myself - see my sig to get the script.

[milkyway]

Hi folks,

several people were mentioning that the sidewiki blockers are based on different principles, or at least that the implementations differ significantly.

Unfortunately, I don't know the first thing about JavaScript.

Can those blockers interfere with other software or scripts? Say, with a tracking or redirecting or link cloaking or whatever script?

Should I rather avoid certain types of implementations when I choose such a blocker to make sure I don't get any interferences?

If that's a dumb question, please feel free to let me know. It'd be nice if you would also let me know why it's dumb -- please don't let me die ignorant...

Thanks,

milkyway

[imacamper]

Seems to work well for me on my Wordpress blog. Thanks!

Cheers,

Drew

[Catalin Ionescu]

milkyway,

I can't speak for other blockers because I haven't studied them all. So the following advice only applies to my blocker, should you decide to try it out...

Generally speaking there shouldn't be any incompatibilities between the blocker and any other scripts running on the same page. It has been designed this way, and so far I haven't received any complaints whatsoever about incompatibilities.

However, given the infinite possibilities of code you could place on any page, there is a chance any script you add into the mix - not only this blocker - could interfere.

With this being said, all my customers receive unlimited support via email.

If after installing the blocker on your site you'd like me to check it out all you have to do is tell me. You will receive the instructions how to do so upon downloading the product.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[milkyway]

Catalin,

thanks for your answer!

I know that nobody can't guarantee that in advance... I was just wondering if there are any known or foreseeable problems with such blocking approaches.

If that's not the case in general, I'll just try and see what happens. After all, I don't have anything else to do...

Thanks,

milkyway

[David McKee]

The only somewhat obvious bug that could occur in a sidewiki blocker is that the hash just happens to match a anchor link in your page - a very small possiblity if the hashing algorithm is random enough, That is why, in my blocker, I use true random by incorporating a date along with a random length string of letters and numbers, plus the option to prepend a keyword of your choice. It makes the possibility go from remote to non-existent.

The other issue, of course, if Google deciding that they are going to post their side-wiki content to the base URL without regard to hashes - that would be a not-good-thing. Then we would have to actually have code that generates true page copies to a separate url or an extended one.

so that:

www_myWebPage_com/myFirstPage

becomes:

www_myWebPage_com/aDifferentPage

This is doable, but more complex of course - various redirection schemes have been in use for affiliate cloaking and such - those techniques will have to be employed if Google gets aggressive about this.

-DTM

[admin]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Thanks but if there is anything untrue or derogatory, you simply could have reported it. I did that for another Warrior member here too, and it was immediately removed.

There wasn't anything on it Marty. Just giving an example.

If this thing takes off how do you expect me to report on 6000+ threads?

I can tell you exactly what would happen. Hundreds of posts to the help desk from people screaming that something should be removed, like we could do something about it.

This thing might be just fine for folks with small sites, but for a site as large as the Warrior Forum it's nothing but bull****...

[Allen Graves]

Originally Posted by admin

This thing might be just fine for folks with small sites, but for a site as large as the Warrior Forum it's nothing but bull****...

Allen,

You're right. I thought at first that it would be a good thing for article directories. But darnit if the spam isn't already all over the damn place.

It seemed like such a great idea at first - but I wasn't thinking about the opportunists.

Its like they can smell blood in the water and they go into a frenzy, attacking without giving it a 2nd thought.

Jackasses.

Allen

[TheRichJerksNet]

Originally Posted by admin

There wasn't anything on it Marty. Just giving an example.

If this thing takes off how do you expect me to report on 6000+ threads?

I can tell you exactly what would happen. Hundreds of posts to the help desk from people screaming that something should be removed, like we could do something about it.

This thing might be just fine for folks with small sites, but for a site as large as the Warrior Forum it's nothing but bull****...

This is one thing some people seem to miss, some sites contain 1,000's of pages and there is no way to monitor them all.. Not even Google can do that and if they even attempted to they would have a huge spike in payroll that would not be worth it ...

Sure a program can be created to notify you of comments.. So now you have to spend time in your day reporting them with no promise of them being removed.

James

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by admin

... This thing might be just fine for folks with small sites, but for a site as large as the Warrior Forum it's nothing but bull****...

I think bull**** is an understatement.

What G is doing reminds me of what some twit hacker would do, like the jerks that jammed an "Ask" homepage down on my PC with their toolbar, which now pops up and tries to become my homepage every damn time Firefox updates.

Kirk

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet

... Sure a program can be created to notify you of comments.. So now you have to spend time in your day reporting them with no promise of them being removed.

James

Aha James,

You've just pointed out their vulnerability. Think of the Louis Vutton counterfeit goods case recently where the ISP was fined $32.4 million for not closing down the hosting accounts of folks whose sites on his servers were selling counterfeit Louis Vutton handbags.

He was notified and ordered to turn off their accounts. He ignored the notice. Whether it was accidental or he was understaffed is not the point. The point is he did not remove the sites and thus became a contributing party.

If Google is notified, and does not respond, then my feeling is we might have a bunch of class action lawyers changing their TV ads from death and disability due to last weeks drug, to "Have you been libeled by a Google Sidewiki."

And Marty, have you considered that by promoting your product, you may be contributing, and could become vulnerable yourself?

Fun thoughts, huh? Especially the cool part of how the Trial Lawyers Association members are probably salivating all over their Corpus Delicti right now.

Kirk
.

[TheRichJerksNet]

Originally Posted by Kirk Ward

If Google is notified, and does not respond, then my feeling is we might have a bunch of class action lawyers changing their TV ads from death and disability due to last weeks drug, to "Have you been libeled by a Google Sidewiki."

Kirk
.

The sooner the better Kirk .... Frankly those "this weeks drug" thing is getting old anyways.

James

[milkyway]

Good morning everybody!

The only somewhat obvious bug that could occur in a sidewiki blocker is that the hash just happens to match a anchor link in your page - a very small possiblity if the hashing algorithm is random enough,

David, thanks for your answer. This clarifies things a lot.

a bunch of class action lawyers changing their TV ads from death and disability due to last weeks drug, to "Have you been libeled by a Google Sidewiki."

Wow, you guys surely have cool TV ads on your side of the pond...

milkyway

[Catalin Ionescu]

Originally Posted by David McKee

The only somewhat obvious bug that could occur in a sidewiki blocker is that the hash just happens to match a anchor link in your page

David, you have raised an excellent point.

Not only we must use random enough hashes, but unless we wish to break the site functionality we must make sure the blocker does in fact allow any anchor link that is present on the page without overwriting it with our hash.

If the script isn't smart enough to recognize existing anchor links and overwrites them, it will break the site functionality.

This is something I believe your script as well as mine detect and preserve.

Originally Posted by David McKee

Then we would have to actually have code that generates true page copies to a separate url or an extended one.

The biggest problem with this type of solution is that by creating true page copies you also create duplicate content. Identical content, that is accessible to the search engine spiders from completely different (in their eyes) URLs.

IMO, gauging the SEO implications of an approach such as this is very difficult unless we actually use it, and the implications could only be seen in weeks or months.


Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[alchemy]

I am rather surprised to see so many solutions just sticking a ''#' code on the end of the URL.

The only reason this works is that there is a flaw in the way the wiki service treats URLs.

A URL with a '#' on the end is not a different URL - and it makes no sense to treat it as such.

If that issue is fixed (which is quite likely), all those javascripts will just stop working overnight

Alan

[ZorroCat]

edited because of temporary confusion.

[Catalin Ionescu]

Zorro,

You are right in that it is a non-issue with the solutions implemented by most blockers now.

What David suggested would be another possible approach when/if the current one will be disabled by Google on a future toolbar update.


Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[David McKee]

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

David, you have raised an excellent point.

Not only we must use random enough hashes, but unless we wish to break the site functionality we must make sure the blocker does in fact allow any anchor link that is present on the page without overwriting it with our hash.

If the script isn't smart enough to recognize existing anchor links and overwrites them, it will break the site functionality.

This is something I believe your script as well as mine detect and preserve.

Yes, it does preserve existing links.

Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu

The biggest problem with this type of solution is that by creating true page copies you also create duplicate content. Identical content, that is accessible to the search engine spiders from completely different (in their eyes) URLs.

IMO, gauging the SEO implications of an approach such as this is very difficult unless we actually use it, and the implications could only be seen in weeks or months.

Yeah, that is just an off the top of my head idea - but it is certainly fraught with difficulties, storage issues, processing issues, lag time, etc. This whole thing is just not pretty.

Let me throw another monkey wrench into the mix, What happens when other players (MS Bing, Yahoo, etc) get into the mix with their own side-wikis? That is coming next, then someone will create a "Multi-Side-Wiki" mashing all the others together. Then, and this is the kicker, someone will start scanning the pages, finding all of the actual anchor links, and only respond to them, using the base URL as the search key for the comment database. When that happens we are going to be forced to create a solution that changes the actual URL.

I have noticed that the current Side-Wiki does not function on SSL sites. I am not sure how long that will last, but we may need to look deeper into that. Unfortunately the toothpaste is out of the tube, and even if Google were to pull Side-Wiki, it does not mean someone else would not come along, someone in a country where our lawsuits mean squat.

-DTM

[Catalin Ionescu]

Originally Posted by David McKee

What happens when other players (MS Bing, Yahoo, etc) get into the mix with their own side-wikis

Well, as you probably know, providing in page content isn't Google's idea. A few other companies have come up with similar concepts in the past, but didn't have the muscle to push it on the market.

Gator was the only one that gained some usage because they already had a lot of stuff on the users computer, but there was a mediatized (is this even a word?) lawsuit at the time and Gator was ordered to cease their solution.

Because of this I was actually surprised that Google came up with an almost identical concept.

Originally Posted by David McKee

I have noticed that the current Side-Wiki does not function on SSL sites. I am not sure how long that will last

This is by design, and Google mentioned it if I remember correctly in their toolbar help. SSL sites are completely excluded from SideWiki.

Even given the low cost shared SSL certificates, implementing them isn't always practical, especially for large and established sites.

I'm not a SEO specialist, but I think there will be consequences and penalties in ranking if you move from a http to a https site, even with URL rewriting.

The problem isn't that others might come with similar concepts or toolbars. There are many great and not so great applications that appear daily. And a few weeks or months later fade away...

I don't really care if Joe Schmuck creates a toolbar that has a similar functionality to SideWiki that is only used by 100 or so people.

But Google already has tens of millions of toolbar users and rising, so the impact of SideWiki is too big to simply be ignored.

Sincerely,
Catalin Ionescu

[TheRichJerksNet]

Originally Posted by David McKee

I have noticed that the current Side-Wiki does not function on SSL sites. I am not sure how long that will last, but we may need to look deeper into that.

-DTM

Google hints they are going to fix that bug ...lol As far as it effecting SEO, no it does not at all.. Some of my sites and also KillerJoe mentioned his site used to be http and was moved to https later on and it did not effect anything..

James