<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_0052231</id>
	<title>Google To Send Detailed Info About Hacked Web Sites</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255537680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>alphadogg writes <i>"In an effort to promote the 'general health of the Web,' Google will <a href="http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/10/show-me-malware.html">send Webmasters snippets of malicious code</a> in the hopes of getting infected Web sites cleaned up faster. The new information will appear as part of Google's Webmaster Tools, a suite of tools that provide data about a Web site, such as site visits. 'We understand the frustration of Webmasters whose sites have been compromised without their knowledge and who discover that their site has been flagged,' wrote Lucas Ballard on Google's online security blog. To Webmasters who are registered with Google, the company will send them an email notifying them of suspicious content along with a list of the affected pages. They'll also be able to see part of the malicious code."</i> Another of the new Webmaster Tools is <a href="http://searchengineland.com/see-what-googlebot-sees-on-your-site-27623">Fetch as Googlebot</a>, which shows you a page as Google's crawler sees it. This should allow Webmasters to see malicious code that bad guys have hidden on their sites via "cloaking," among other benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>alphadogg writes " In an effort to promote the 'general health of the Web, ' Google will send Webmasters snippets of malicious code in the hopes of getting infected Web sites cleaned up faster .
The new information will appear as part of Google 's Webmaster Tools , a suite of tools that provide data about a Web site , such as site visits .
'We understand the frustration of Webmasters whose sites have been compromised without their knowledge and who discover that their site has been flagged, ' wrote Lucas Ballard on Google 's online security blog .
To Webmasters who are registered with Google , the company will send them an email notifying them of suspicious content along with a list of the affected pages .
They 'll also be able to see part of the malicious code .
" Another of the new Webmaster Tools is Fetch as Googlebot , which shows you a page as Google 's crawler sees it .
This should allow Webmasters to see malicious code that bad guys have hidden on their sites via " cloaking , " among other benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alphadogg writes "In an effort to promote the 'general health of the Web,' Google will send Webmasters snippets of malicious code in the hopes of getting infected Web sites cleaned up faster.
The new information will appear as part of Google's Webmaster Tools, a suite of tools that provide data about a Web site, such as site visits.
'We understand the frustration of Webmasters whose sites have been compromised without their knowledge and who discover that their site has been flagged,' wrote Lucas Ballard on Google's online security blog.
To Webmasters who are registered with Google, the company will send them an email notifying them of suspicious content along with a list of the affected pages.
They'll also be able to see part of the malicious code.
" Another of the new Webmaster Tools is Fetch as Googlebot, which shows you a page as Google's crawler sees it.
This should allow Webmasters to see malicious code that bad guys have hidden on their sites via "cloaking," among other benefits.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29744503</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally I would agree, but a lot of websites are run without the advanced knowledge for finding these "broken" pages.</p><p>This is basically a free antivirus for your website that is less annoying because you do not even have to run it on your server.  I am not a fan of Google, as a company, but they have the information to track and protect users (such as with the Malicious website warning in Firefox), so why not go the extra step and inform the most likely ignorant (of the issue) webmaster of the injected malware.</p><p>If it was an opt-in service, then most people would remain ignorant to the problems on their site, and the problems for web users would still persist. I prefer someone else was doing this, or that it was a separate service, but I am not going to complain about getting it as it could do a lot for helping to clean up the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I would agree , but a lot of websites are run without the advanced knowledge for finding these " broken " pages.This is basically a free antivirus for your website that is less annoying because you do not even have to run it on your server .
I am not a fan of Google , as a company , but they have the information to track and protect users ( such as with the Malicious website warning in Firefox ) , so why not go the extra step and inform the most likely ignorant ( of the issue ) webmaster of the injected malware.If it was an opt-in service , then most people would remain ignorant to the problems on their site , and the problems for web users would still persist .
I prefer someone else was doing this , or that it was a separate service , but I am not going to complain about getting it as it could do a lot for helping to clean up the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally I would agree, but a lot of websites are run without the advanced knowledge for finding these "broken" pages.This is basically a free antivirus for your website that is less annoying because you do not even have to run it on your server.
I am not a fan of Google, as a company, but they have the information to track and protect users (such as with the Malicious website warning in Firefox), so why not go the extra step and inform the most likely ignorant (of the issue) webmaster of the injected malware.If it was an opt-in service, then most people would remain ignorant to the problems on their site, and the problems for web users would still persist.
I prefer someone else was doing this, or that it was a separate service, but I am not going to complain about getting it as it could do a lot for helping to clean up the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745667</id>
	<title>"Google" to send this info or Google pretenders?</title>
	<author>azdio</author>
	<datestamp>1255538940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phishing types are already preparing false communications and false sites with such warnings "from google". There are certainly many mechanisms in existence to help authenticate that a communication is actually from google. Hopefully the use of such mechanisms is clever enough to avoid more contamination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phishing types are already preparing false communications and false sites with such warnings " from google " .
There are certainly many mechanisms in existence to help authenticate that a communication is actually from google .
Hopefully the use of such mechanisms is clever enough to avoid more contamination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phishing types are already preparing false communications and false sites with such warnings "from google".
There are certainly many mechanisms in existence to help authenticate that a communication is actually from google.
Hopefully the use of such mechanisms is clever enough to avoid more contamination.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741677</id>
	<title>Re:web health should be a communal effort (and fre</title>
	<author>DrEldarion</author>
	<datestamp>1255463640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Registered webmasters (registration is free) of infected sites do not need to specially enable the feature -- they will find links to it on the Webmaster Tools dashboard.</p></div><p>Google does not charge for Webmaster Tools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Registered webmasters ( registration is free ) of infected sites do not need to specially enable the feature -- they will find links to it on the Webmaster Tools dashboard.Google does not charge for Webmaster Tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Registered webmasters (registration is free) of infected sites do not need to specially enable the feature -- they will find links to it on the Webmaster Tools dashboard.Google does not charge for Webmaster Tools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741149</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>EricvanIngen</author>
	<datestamp>1255455480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741929</id>
	<title>From the awesome-for-pr0n dept.</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1255553880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Another of the new Webmaster Tools is Fetch as Googlebot, which shows you a page as Google's crawler sees it.</p></div><p>Heh, could find some use outside of the designed purpose then... A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it, but requires payment from users. Among other boards, those involving erotica.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another of the new Webmaster Tools is Fetch as Googlebot , which shows you a page as Google 's crawler sees it.Heh , could find some use outside of the designed purpose then... A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it , but requires payment from users .
Among other boards , those involving erotica .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Another of the new Webmaster Tools is Fetch as Googlebot, which shows you a page as Google's crawler sees it.Heh, could find some use outside of the designed purpose then... A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it, but requires payment from users.
Among other boards, those involving erotica.
:p
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741449</id>
	<title>Poor Google IT webmasters!</title>
	<author>snikulin</author>
	<datestamp>1255459860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Default Apache e-mail is webmaster@localhost</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Default Apache e-mail is webmaster @ localhost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Default Apache e-mail is webmaster@localhost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743951</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>um, so I just reported that page as phishing to Google(bottom of the page, report as phishing), do these sites do that or just expect Google to find their hideous website and then fix the problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>um , so I just reported that page as phishing to Google ( bottom of the page , report as phishing ) , do these sites do that or just expect Google to find their hideous website and then fix the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um, so I just reported that page as phishing to Google(bottom of the page, report as phishing), do these sites do that or just expect Google to find their hideous website and then fix the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147</id>
	<title>Gentlemen, check your Webmaster tools</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255455480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a great service.  Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well.
</p><p>It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google.  That's great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great service .
Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well .
It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google .
That 's great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great service.
Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well.
It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google.
That's great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742189</id>
	<title>WOW sites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255513560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many wow accounts are hacked from keyloggers that are installed just by visiting wow sites. Gold vendors, wow auction houses, and simple forums can cause you to lose your wow accounts...</p><p>What would be nice if google could make these sites it detects with googlebot available so developers could patch the holes in firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many wow accounts are hacked from keyloggers that are installed just by visiting wow sites .
Gold vendors , wow auction houses , and simple forums can cause you to lose your wow accounts...What would be nice if google could make these sites it detects with googlebot available so developers could patch the holes in firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many wow accounts are hacked from keyloggers that are installed just by visiting wow sites.
Gold vendors, wow auction houses, and simple forums can cause you to lose your wow accounts...What would be nice if google could make these sites it detects with googlebot available so developers could patch the holes in firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753445</id>
	<title>Google cleans up their act.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1255542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Google finally fixed this. The offending page now reads "We're sorry. You can't access this spreadsheet because it is in violation of our Terms of service. If you feel this is in error, please contact us."
</p><p>
Sometimes you just have to use a big clue stick to get their attention.  It took some help from The Register to get Yahoo, Microsoft, and eBay to clean up their acts.
</p><p>
Five more long-term exploited sites remain.  A bit more nagging, and we'll have this cleaned up.
</p><p>
Once this is cleaned up, phishing blacklists that blacklist entire second-level domains will be effective.  No more just blacklisting the URL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google finally fixed this .
The offending page now reads " We 're sorry .
You ca n't access this spreadsheet because it is in violation of our Terms of service .
If you feel this is in error , please contact us .
" Sometimes you just have to use a big clue stick to get their attention .
It took some help from The Register to get Yahoo , Microsoft , and eBay to clean up their acts .
Five more long-term exploited sites remain .
A bit more nagging , and we 'll have this cleaned up .
Once this is cleaned up , phishing blacklists that blacklist entire second-level domains will be effective .
No more just blacklisting the URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google finally fixed this.
The offending page now reads "We're sorry.
You can't access this spreadsheet because it is in violation of our Terms of service.
If you feel this is in error, please contact us.
"

Sometimes you just have to use a big clue stick to get their attention.
It took some help from The Register to get Yahoo, Microsoft, and eBay to clean up their acts.
Five more long-term exploited sites remain.
A bit more nagging, and we'll have this cleaned up.
Once this is cleaned up, phishing blacklists that blacklist entire second-level domains will be effective.
No more just blacklisting the URL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743111</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You put it on the internet.<br> <br>If it's on the internet, it's public. Don't put anything private on the internet. Don't expect anything private put on the internet to remain private.<br> <br>Information wants to be free. If you don't want your information to be free, keep it to your god damn self!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You put it on the internet .
If it 's on the internet , it 's public .
Do n't put anything private on the internet .
Do n't expect anything private put on the internet to remain private .
Information wants to be free .
If you do n't want your information to be free , keep it to your god damn self !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You put it on the internet.
If it's on the internet, it's public.
Don't put anything private on the internet.
Don't expect anything private put on the internet to remain private.
Information wants to be free.
If you don't want your information to be free, keep it to your god damn self!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742589</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1255519260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is not playing police, they merely tell searchers it's a bad idea to go there. If you don't want others to link to you, don't go on the intarwebs. Also getting indexed by google is only possible if you sign up. </p><p>Yes it's terrible, you have to type in "User-agent: *\n Disallow / " I can feel you pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not playing police , they merely tell searchers it 's a bad idea to go there .
If you do n't want others to link to you , do n't go on the intarwebs .
Also getting indexed by google is only possible if you sign up .
Yes it 's terrible , you have to type in " User-agent : * \ n Disallow / " I can feel you pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not playing police, they merely tell searchers it's a bad idea to go there.
If you don't want others to link to you, don't go on the intarwebs.
Also getting indexed by google is only possible if you sign up.
Yes it's terrible, you have to type in "User-agent: *\n Disallow / " I can feel you pain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741861</id>
	<title>Happened over here</title>
	<author>orta</author>
	<datestamp>1255552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This happened to my site and the google webmaster tools were helpful but frustrating, it took 2 weeks of my site being banned in all major browsers before they officially sanctioned it OK. It did give me a list of all the URLS where there was problems, so it wasn't too hard to debug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happened to my site and the google webmaster tools were helpful but frustrating , it took 2 weeks of my site being banned in all major browsers before they officially sanctioned it OK. It did give me a list of all the URLS where there was problems , so it was n't too hard to debug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happened to my site and the google webmaster tools were helpful but frustrating, it took 2 weeks of my site being banned in all major browsers before they officially sanctioned it OK. It did give me a list of all the URLS where there was problems, so it wasn't too hard to debug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385</id>
	<title>Good idea, but...</title>
	<author>PrimaryConsult</author>
	<datestamp>1255458900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google's determination on whether a site has malicious content is based solely on crawling it, wouldn't a hacker be able to manipulate robots.txt to ignore the file with the malware?  These tools would allow a hacker to test that theory out, by trying different things on his own sites and seeing what generates an email, instead of waiting around for Google to re-crawl them and having to check each one to see if it is filtered...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google 's determination on whether a site has malicious content is based solely on crawling it , would n't a hacker be able to manipulate robots.txt to ignore the file with the malware ?
These tools would allow a hacker to test that theory out , by trying different things on his own sites and seeing what generates an email , instead of waiting around for Google to re-crawl them and having to check each one to see if it is filtered.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google's determination on whether a site has malicious content is based solely on crawling it, wouldn't a hacker be able to manipulate robots.txt to ignore the file with the malware?
These tools would allow a hacker to test that theory out, by trying different things on his own sites and seeing what generates an email, instead of waiting around for Google to re-crawl them and having to check each one to see if it is filtered...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29750193</id>
	<title>Re:Gentlemen, check your Webmaster tools</title>
	<author>sahala</author>
	<datestamp>1255515780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a great service.  Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well.
</p><p>It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google.  That's great.</p></div><p>
Webmaster Tools has opt-in email notification.  Here are details:
<a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-make-webmaster-tools-message-center.html" title="blogspot.com">http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-make-webmaster-tools-message-center.html</a> [blogspot.com]
</p><p>
The "Malware details"  feature (mentioned in the article), however, doesn't send you any notifications just yet.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great service .
Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well .
It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google .
That 's great .
Webmaster Tools has opt-in email notification .
Here are details : http : //googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-make-webmaster-tools-message-center.html [ blogspot.com ] The " Malware details " feature ( mentioned in the article ) , however , does n't send you any notifications just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great service.
Google should set up an opt-in email notification as well.
It helps the webmasters build better sites and teaches them to check the Google website tools that allow them to groom their site for best indexing on Google.
That's great.
Webmaster Tools has opt-in email notification.
Here are details:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/06/to-make-webmaster-tools-message-center.html [blogspot.com]

The "Malware details"  feature (mentioned in the article), however, doesn't send you any notifications just yet.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743025</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255525500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who wants this service from Google? Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now, and it should be preemtively rejected by users. If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and don't-s. I didn't ask about their service, nor I would like to be informed by their *unknown* ways of analyzing my pages. And no I don't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers. Why in the hell I should say get away, while if I don't it means I welcome them.</p></div><p>Take your shitty attitude and get the hell out of my internets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants this service from Google ?
Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now , and it should be preemtively rejected by users .
If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and do n't-s. I did n't ask about their service , nor I would like to be informed by their * unknown * ways of analyzing my pages .
And no I do n't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers .
Why in the hell I should say get away , while if I do n't it means I welcome them.Take your shitty attitude and get the hell out of my internets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants this service from Google?
Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now, and it should be preemtively rejected by users.
If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and don't-s. I didn't ask about their service, nor I would like to be informed by their *unknown* ways of analyzing my pages.
And no I don't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers.
Why in the hell I should say get away, while if I don't it means I welcome them.Take your shitty attitude and get the hell out of my internets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743001</id>
	<title>Academic cloaking</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1255525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it, but requires payment from users. Among other boards, those involving erotica.</p></div><p>This sort of cloaking is frustrating even for people who aren't porn fans. A lot of scholarly journals spam search engine result pages with their cloaked, <tt>noarchive</tt>d pages &lt;cough&gt;elsevier and springerlink&lt;/cough&gt;. Even more frustrating is that Google provides no way for users 1. to exclude <tt>noarchive</tt>d pages from its results or 2. to report sites that violate Google's stated cloaking policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it , but requires payment from users .
Among other boards , those involving erotica.This sort of cloaking is frustrating even for people who are n't porn fans .
A lot of scholarly journals spam search engine result pages with their cloaked , noarchived pages elsevier and springerlink .
Even more frustrating is that Google provides no way for users 1. to exclude noarchived pages from its results or 2. to report sites that violate Google 's stated cloaking policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number of pay-to-view web forums allow the Googlebot to freely navigate it, but requires payment from users.
Among other boards, those involving erotica.This sort of cloaking is frustrating even for people who aren't porn fans.
A lot of scholarly journals spam search engine result pages with their cloaked, noarchived pages elsevier and springerlink.
Even more frustrating is that Google provides no way for users 1. to exclude noarchived pages from its results or 2. to report sites that violate Google's stated cloaking policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</id>
	<title>Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255457460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Google has a malware hosting problem of their own.
</p><p>
Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages.  Here's <a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pweFlqTv1fk-lZ6Jna3OrIQ&amp;amp" title="google.com">one for "Free Habbo credits"</a> [google.com], designed to collect Habbo logins.
It's been reported via the usual "Google abuse" mechanism, repeatedly, and it's still up. It's been up since
October 28, 2008.
</p><p>
We track <a href="http://www.sitetruth.com/reports/phishes.html" title="sitetruth.com">major domains being exploited by active phishing scams.</a> [sitetruth.com] ("Major" here means only that it's in Open Directory, with about 1.5 million domains.)  There are 39 exploited domains today.  Only 7 have been on that list since 2008.  The most abused site is Piczo.com, which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers.
</p><p>
Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act.  18 months ago, that list had 174 entries, including Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft Live, and TinyURL.  All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain.  Google's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a malware hosting problem of their own .
Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages .
Here 's one for " Free Habbo credits " [ google.com ] , designed to collect Habbo logins .
It 's been reported via the usual " Google abuse " mechanism , repeatedly , and it 's still up .
It 's been up since October 28 , 2008 .
We track major domains being exploited by active phishing scams .
[ sitetruth.com ] ( " Major " here means only that it 's in Open Directory , with about 1.5 million domains .
) There are 39 exploited domains today .
Only 7 have been on that list since 2008 .
The most abused site is Piczo.com , which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers .
Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act .
18 months ago , that list had 174 entries , including Yahoo , eBay , Microsoft Live , and TinyURL .
All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain .
Google 's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google has a malware hosting problem of their own.
Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages.
Here's one for "Free Habbo credits" [google.com], designed to collect Habbo logins.
It's been reported via the usual "Google abuse" mechanism, repeatedly, and it's still up.
It's been up since
October 28, 2008.
We track major domains being exploited by active phishing scams.
[sitetruth.com] ("Major" here means only that it's in Open Directory, with about 1.5 million domains.
)  There are 39 exploited domains today.
Only 7 have been on that list since 2008.
The most abused site is Piczo.com, which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers.
Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act.
18 months ago, that list had 174 entries, including Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft Live, and TinyURL.
All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain.
Google's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741257</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>TheBilgeRat</author>
	<datestamp>1255457160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who Vatches the Vatchers?
<br> <br>
\conspiracy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who Vatches the Vatchers ?
\ conspiracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who Vatches the Vatchers?
\conspiracy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741467</id>
	<title>Black Rose Immortal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the name of desperation<br>I call your name<br>A lamentation I sigh<br>Again and again</p><p>Spiritual eclipse<br>The gateways are closed for me to seek</p><p>The night...<br>A veil of stars, watching<br>My shadow is born from light<br>The light of the eye, in darkness</p><p>Over troubled waters memories soar<br>Endlessly, searching night and day<br>The moonlight caresses a lonely hill<br>With the calmness of a whisper</p><p>I wear a naked soul<br>A blank face in the streaming water<br>It is cold in here<br>Frost scar my coat with dust</p><p>Eyes attach to your mute portrait<br>We spoke only through thoughts<br>Together we gazed, awaited<br>Hours brought thirst and the rising sun</p><p>Sunbirds leave their dark recesses<br>Shadows glide the archways</p><p>Do not turn your face towards me<br>Confronting me with my loneliness<br>You are in a forest unknown<br>The secret orchard<br>And your voice is vast and achromatic<br>But still so precious</p><p>Lullaby of the crescent moon took you<br>Mesmerized, its kaleidoscopic face<br>Granted you a hollow stare<br>Another soul within the divine herd</p><p>I have kept it<br>The Amaranth symbol<br>Hiddin inside the golden shrine<br>Until we rejoice in the meadow<br>Of the end<br>When we both walk the shadows<br>It will set ablaze and vanish<br>Black rose immortal</p><p>It is getting dark again<br>Dusk shuffle across the fields<br>The evening trees moan as if they knew<br>At night I always dream of you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the name of desperationI call your nameA lamentation I sighAgain and againSpiritual eclipseThe gateways are closed for me to seekThe night...A veil of stars , watchingMy shadow is born from lightThe light of the eye , in darknessOver troubled waters memories soarEndlessly , searching night and dayThe moonlight caresses a lonely hillWith the calmness of a whisperI wear a naked soulA blank face in the streaming waterIt is cold in hereFrost scar my coat with dustEyes attach to your mute portraitWe spoke only through thoughtsTogether we gazed , awaitedHours brought thirst and the rising sunSunbirds leave their dark recessesShadows glide the archwaysDo not turn your face towards meConfronting me with my lonelinessYou are in a forest unknownThe secret orchardAnd your voice is vast and achromaticBut still so preciousLullaby of the crescent moon took youMesmerized , its kaleidoscopic faceGranted you a hollow stareAnother soul within the divine herdI have kept itThe Amaranth symbolHiddin inside the golden shrineUntil we rejoice in the meadowOf the endWhen we both walk the shadowsIt will set ablaze and vanishBlack rose immortalIt is getting dark againDusk shuffle across the fieldsThe evening trees moan as if they knewAt night I always dream of you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the name of desperationI call your nameA lamentation I sighAgain and againSpiritual eclipseThe gateways are closed for me to seekThe night...A veil of stars, watchingMy shadow is born from lightThe light of the eye, in darknessOver troubled waters memories soarEndlessly, searching night and dayThe moonlight caresses a lonely hillWith the calmness of a whisperI wear a naked soulA blank face in the streaming waterIt is cold in hereFrost scar my coat with dustEyes attach to your mute portraitWe spoke only through thoughtsTogether we gazed, awaitedHours brought thirst and the rising sunSunbirds leave their dark recessesShadows glide the archwaysDo not turn your face towards meConfronting me with my lonelinessYou are in a forest unknownThe secret orchardAnd your voice is vast and achromaticBut still so preciousLullaby of the crescent moon took youMesmerized, its kaleidoscopic faceGranted you a hollow stareAnother soul within the divine herdI have kept itThe Amaranth symbolHiddin inside the golden shrineUntil we rejoice in the meadowOf the endWhen we both walk the shadowsIt will set ablaze and vanishBlack rose immortalIt is getting dark againDusk shuffle across the fieldsThe evening trees moan as if they knewAt night I always dream of you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741443</id>
	<title>web health should be a communal effort (and free)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255459740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I appreciate Google's need to make a buck, however if they truly were doing this "in the interest of general web health," they would not charge for notification. They ought to charge for fixing the bug, and give the notification for free if google happens to detect it.</p><p>
&nbsp; This has a revere side, if you don't pay them, and you don't know, the largest search engine can have you flagged as a risky site to visit. If it can hurt your site by scanning it then this would also be "protection money" more in mafia terms.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'm not preaching any system here, but security as a general effort should be made in general by the general community. Generally speaking O.F.C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate Google 's need to make a buck , however if they truly were doing this " in the interest of general web health , " they would not charge for notification .
They ought to charge for fixing the bug , and give the notification for free if google happens to detect it .
  This has a revere side , if you do n't pay them , and you do n't know , the largest search engine can have you flagged as a risky site to visit .
If it can hurt your site by scanning it then this would also be " protection money " more in mafia terms .
  I 'm not preaching any system here , but security as a general effort should be made in general by the general community .
Generally speaking O.F.C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I appreciate Google's need to make a buck, however if they truly were doing this "in the interest of general web health," they would not charge for notification.
They ought to charge for fixing the bug, and give the notification for free if google happens to detect it.
  This has a revere side, if you don't pay them, and you don't know, the largest search engine can have you flagged as a risky site to visit.
If it can hurt your site by scanning it then this would also be "protection money" more in mafia terms.
  I'm not preaching any system here, but security as a general effort should be made in general by the general community.
Generally speaking O.F.C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743253</id>
	<title>tit for tat</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1255527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A friend of mine works at Bluecoat ( <a href="http://www.bluecoat.com/" title="bluecoat.com">http://www.bluecoat.com/</a> [bluecoat.com] if you care...) (they do internet security and filtering services). He says they regularly send reports to Google when they find that Google is compromised with malicious code... so its good to know Google's taking part in helping fix a problem they certainly deal with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine works at Bluecoat ( http : //www.bluecoat.com/ [ bluecoat.com ] if you care... ) ( they do internet security and filtering services ) .
He says they regularly send reports to Google when they find that Google is compromised with malicious code... so its good to know Google 's taking part in helping fix a problem they certainly deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine works at Bluecoat ( http://www.bluecoat.com/ [bluecoat.com] if you care...) (they do internet security and filtering services).
He says they regularly send reports to Google when they find that Google is compromised with malicious code... so its good to know Google's taking part in helping fix a problem they certainly deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741569</id>
	<title>Helping the hackers?</title>
	<author>NewsWatcher</author>
	<datestamp>1255461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you wanted to test out malicious code to see whether it was likely to be discovered, wouldn't this be a great tool to have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you wanted to test out malicious code to see whether it was likely to be discovered , would n't this be a great tool to have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you wanted to test out malicious code to see whether it was likely to be discovered, wouldn't this be a great tool to have?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745033</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1255536360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google has a malware hosting problem of their own.</p><p>Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages. Here's one for "Free Habbo credits", designed to collect Habbo logins. It's been reported via the usual "Google abuse" mechanism, repeatedly, and it's still up. It's been up since October 28, 2008.</p><p>We track major domains being exploited by active phishing scams. ("Major" here means only that it's in Open Directory, with about 1.5 million domains.) There are 39 exploited domains today. Only 7 have been on that list since 2008. The most abused site is Piczo.com, which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers.</p><p>Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act. 18 months ago, that list had 174 entries, including Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft Live, and TinyURL. All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain. Google's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me guess - you want Google to remove people's documents arbitrarily? That's what you're saying.</p><p>Right now, Google's right to not do anything - how would you feel if someone just took down one of your documents arbitrarily? Not even a DMCA notice, just a vague "this is a hacker tool" thing? And how do you differentiate between "fake login page" and "log in page mockup"? After all, when designing a UI, you can do it in any medium you feel comfortable in.</p><p>So yeah, Google is clueless. They're so clueless, they'd rather not remove someone's document because there can be many legitimate reasons for it to be there. And I suppose, as much as Google would like to remove it, doing so sets a bad precedent. Your Google Doc annoys someone? Click "report abuse" and Google will take it down. Better than DMCA notice.</p><p>At best, Google can remove it from the index. But allowing Google to arbitrarily remove any document by an anonymous person invites a whole new can of worms. Might as well ban bullets, they've been used to harm people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a malware hosting problem of their own.Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages .
Here 's one for " Free Habbo credits " , designed to collect Habbo logins .
It 's been reported via the usual " Google abuse " mechanism , repeatedly , and it 's still up .
It 's been up since October 28 , 2008.We track major domains being exploited by active phishing scams .
( " Major " here means only that it 's in Open Directory , with about 1.5 million domains .
) There are 39 exploited domains today .
Only 7 have been on that list since 2008 .
The most abused site is Piczo.com , which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers.Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act .
18 months ago , that list had 174 entries , including Yahoo , eBay , Microsoft Live , and TinyURL .
All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain .
Google 's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone.Let me guess - you want Google to remove people 's documents arbitrarily ?
That 's what you 're saying.Right now , Google 's right to not do anything - how would you feel if someone just took down one of your documents arbitrarily ?
Not even a DMCA notice , just a vague " this is a hacker tool " thing ?
And how do you differentiate between " fake login page " and " log in page mockup " ?
After all , when designing a UI , you can do it in any medium you feel comfortable in.So yeah , Google is clueless .
They 're so clueless , they 'd rather not remove someone 's document because there can be many legitimate reasons for it to be there .
And I suppose , as much as Google would like to remove it , doing so sets a bad precedent .
Your Google Doc annoys someone ?
Click " report abuse " and Google will take it down .
Better than DMCA notice.At best , Google can remove it from the index .
But allowing Google to arbitrarily remove any document by an anonymous person invites a whole new can of worms .
Might as well ban bullets , they 've been used to harm people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has a malware hosting problem of their own.Google Spreadsheets can be abused to create phony login pages.
Here's one for "Free Habbo credits", designed to collect Habbo logins.
It's been reported via the usual "Google abuse" mechanism, repeatedly, and it's still up.
It's been up since October 28, 2008.We track major domains being exploited by active phishing scams.
("Major" here means only that it's in Open Directory, with about 1.5 million domains.
) There are 39 exploited domains today.
Only 7 have been on that list since 2008.
The most abused site is Piczo.com, which is a hosting service/social network/shopping site for teenagers.Just about everybody else has cleaned up their act.
18 months ago, that list had 174 entries, including Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft Live, and TinyURL.
All those companies have become more aggressive about checking for phishing scams that were injected into their domain.
Google's cluelessness in this area ought to be embarrassing to someone.Let me guess - you want Google to remove people's documents arbitrarily?
That's what you're saying.Right now, Google's right to not do anything - how would you feel if someone just took down one of your documents arbitrarily?
Not even a DMCA notice, just a vague "this is a hacker tool" thing?
And how do you differentiate between "fake login page" and "log in page mockup"?
After all, when designing a UI, you can do it in any medium you feel comfortable in.So yeah, Google is clueless.
They're so clueless, they'd rather not remove someone's document because there can be many legitimate reasons for it to be there.
And I suppose, as much as Google would like to remove it, doing so sets a bad precedent.
Your Google Doc annoys someone?
Click "report abuse" and Google will take it down.
Better than DMCA notice.At best, Google can remove it from the index.
But allowing Google to arbitrarily remove any document by an anonymous person invites a whole new can of worms.
Might as well ban bullets, they've been used to harm people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743223</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An ordinary scam (like the Habbo one listed above) is different from a phishing attack (which requires that the attacker impersonates another entity).</p><p>You have absolutely no hard evidence (other than your own experience and cynicism) that the site collecting Habbo logins isn't doing so for purely honest reasons and will only use them to deposit 500 credits in each account submitted.</p><p>This comes down to a matter of trust. If you trust random people on the Internet, you're going to get screwed over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An ordinary scam ( like the Habbo one listed above ) is different from a phishing attack ( which requires that the attacker impersonates another entity ) .You have absolutely no hard evidence ( other than your own experience and cynicism ) that the site collecting Habbo logins is n't doing so for purely honest reasons and will only use them to deposit 500 credits in each account submitted.This comes down to a matter of trust .
If you trust random people on the Internet , you 're going to get screwed over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An ordinary scam (like the Habbo one listed above) is different from a phishing attack (which requires that the attacker impersonates another entity).You have absolutely no hard evidence (other than your own experience and cynicism) that the site collecting Habbo logins isn't doing so for purely honest reasons and will only use them to deposit 500 credits in each account submitted.This comes down to a matter of trust.
If you trust random people on the Internet, you're going to get screwed over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</id>
	<title>Who requests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255551360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants this service from Google? Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now, and it should be preemtively rejected by users. If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and don't-s. I didn't ask about their service, nor I would like to be informed by their *unknown* ways of analyzing my pages. And no I don't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers. Why in the hell I should say get away, while if I don't it means I welcome them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants this service from Google ?
Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now , and it should be preemtively rejected by users .
If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and do n't-s. I did n't ask about their service , nor I would like to be informed by their * unknown * ways of analyzing my pages .
And no I do n't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers .
Why in the hell I should say get away , while if I do n't it means I welcome them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants this service from Google?
Any company starting to act like an internet police is a huge risk in future if not now, and it should be preemtively rejected by users.
If people rely on this kind of services in future Google will list its do-s and don't-s. I didn't ask about their service, nor I would like to be informed by their *unknown* ways of analyzing my pages.
And no I don't want to host a useless piece of text called robots.txt to get rid of google crawlers.
Why in the hell I should say get away, while if I don't it means I welcome them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745299</id>
	<title>Re:Good idea, but...</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1255537440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine they could have a different bot that doesn't do any kind of search indexing, but checks for malware/security issues and can't be blocked with robots.txt</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine they could have a different bot that does n't do any kind of search indexing , but checks for malware/security issues and ca n't be blocked with robots.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine they could have a different bot that doesn't do any kind of search indexing, but checks for malware/security issues and can't be blocked with robots.txt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742635</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1255519920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you are that paranoid, cut your network cable. It will ensure that those pesky googlebots stay away from your precious data.
</p><p>
If you put your data on public website, others are free to read that data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are that paranoid , cut your network cable .
It will ensure that those pesky googlebots stay away from your precious data .
If you put your data on public website , others are free to read that data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you are that paranoid, cut your network cable.
It will ensure that those pesky googlebots stay away from your precious data.
If you put your data on public website, others are free to read that data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742471</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... they did kill Google Pages... come on, you can't fault them there, that whole thing was just a nuclear bomb waiting to happen...</p><p>Still despise Google Sites though.  It is almost embarrassing compared to the flexibility of Pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... they did kill Google Pages... come on , you ca n't fault them there , that whole thing was just a nuclear bomb waiting to happen...Still despise Google Sites though .
It is almost embarrassing compared to the flexibility of Pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... they did kill Google Pages... come on, you can't fault them there, that whole thing was just a nuclear bomb waiting to happen...Still despise Google Sites though.
It is almost embarrassing compared to the flexibility of Pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745541</id>
	<title>I've tried this before, and failed</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1255538460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My site was once getting hit really hard from some other web site with a hole on their feedback page.  I tried to email their webmaster but my message got flagged as spam.  I guess including IP addresses, multiple links, phrases like "spam", "execute script", "spambot", and "exploit" aren't looked kindly upon by the internet powers that be.  I just blocked any connections coming from their IP, but I wish I could have gotten through to shut down the security exploit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My site was once getting hit really hard from some other web site with a hole on their feedback page .
I tried to email their webmaster but my message got flagged as spam .
I guess including IP addresses , multiple links , phrases like " spam " , " execute script " , " spambot " , and " exploit " are n't looked kindly upon by the internet powers that be .
I just blocked any connections coming from their IP , but I wish I could have gotten through to shut down the security exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My site was once getting hit really hard from some other web site with a hole on their feedback page.
I tried to email their webmaster but my message got flagged as spam.
I guess including IP addresses, multiple links, phrases like "spam", "execute script", "spambot", and "exploit" aren't looked kindly upon by the internet powers that be.
I just blocked any connections coming from their IP, but I wish I could have gotten through to shut down the security exploit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742205</id>
	<title>Re:Who requests</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1255513740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Mr. Murdoch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Mr. Murdoch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Mr. Murdoch!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745799</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs to clean up their own act first,</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255539480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is my opinion that (Google is no more &quot;secure&quot; than any other website or corporation. Google is doing the same thing Sony does; they're just slapping their name on their new product and letting a bunch of people assume it's good because their name is on it. The only interesting thing mentioned in the article synopsis is the &quot;Fetch as Googlebot&quot; feature, because now when you search for a picture and Google lists some 4000x3000 photo that matches what you want and it turns out that was just bait which doesn't exist when you go to the actual site, you can &quot;Fetch as Googlebot&quot; and get the same result they fed to the search engine.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is my opinion that ( Google is no more " secure " than any other website or corporation .
Google is doing the same thing Sony does ; they 're just slapping their name on their new product and letting a bunch of people assume it 's good because their name is on it .
The only interesting thing mentioned in the article synopsis is the " Fetch as Googlebot " feature , because now when you search for a picture and Google lists some 4000x3000 photo that matches what you want and it turns out that was just bait which does n't exist when you go to the actual site , you can " Fetch as Googlebot " and get the same result they fed to the search engine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is my opinion that (Google is no more "secure" than any other website or corporation.
Google is doing the same thing Sony does; they're just slapping their name on their new product and letting a bunch of people assume it's good because their name is on it.
The only interesting thing mentioned in the article synopsis is the "Fetch as Googlebot" feature, because now when you search for a picture and Google lists some 4000x3000 photo that matches what you want and it turns out that was just bait which doesn't exist when you go to the actual site, you can "Fetch as Googlebot" and get the same result they fed to the search engine.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753495</id>
	<title>Re:Good idea, but...</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1255543080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are correct but it might be counter productive.  GoogleBot obeys robots.txt so if the hacker listed the infected page in robots.txt google shouldn't ever request it.  However, if you are a hacker and you have infected a page then I assume they want people to view it. Hiding the page from google probably lowers the number of visitors to an unacceptable low number.
<br> <br>
Also, I think allot of infected pages are a result of SQL injection or simply dropping some cross-site scripting code into form field of completely insecure website.  This is a lot more trivial than gaining enough access to the machine to modify the robots.txt file.  If they had that kind of access they are probably already hosting a dozen of their own sites on your server and sending spam from it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
However, I think your idea is sound in the context you presented it.
<br> <br>
Now please excuse me, I have to scurry off and make sure my robots.txt file is set to deny-writes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are correct but it might be counter productive .
GoogleBot obeys robots.txt so if the hacker listed the infected page in robots.txt google should n't ever request it .
However , if you are a hacker and you have infected a page then I assume they want people to view it .
Hiding the page from google probably lowers the number of visitors to an unacceptable low number .
Also , I think allot of infected pages are a result of SQL injection or simply dropping some cross-site scripting code into form field of completely insecure website .
This is a lot more trivial than gaining enough access to the machine to modify the robots.txt file .
If they had that kind of access they are probably already hosting a dozen of their own sites on your server and sending spam from it : ) However , I think your idea is sound in the context you presented it .
Now please excuse me , I have to scurry off and make sure my robots.txt file is set to deny-writes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are correct but it might be counter productive.
GoogleBot obeys robots.txt so if the hacker listed the infected page in robots.txt google shouldn't ever request it.
However, if you are a hacker and you have infected a page then I assume they want people to view it.
Hiding the page from google probably lowers the number of visitors to an unacceptable low number.
Also, I think allot of infected pages are a result of SQL injection or simply dropping some cross-site scripting code into form field of completely insecure website.
This is a lot more trivial than gaining enough access to the machine to modify the robots.txt file.
If they had that kind of access they are probably already hosting a dozen of their own sites on your server and sending spam from it :)
 
However, I think your idea is sound in the context you presented it.
Now please excuse me, I have to scurry off and make sure my robots.txt file is set to deny-writes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29748277</id>
	<title>If You Find These Strings, You're Infected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every admin should grep all of their HTML srouce code for these malicious strings:<br>DoubleClick   adsense   google-analytics  searchmarketing.yahoo.com<br>If you find any of those in your pages, delete them immediately before your users are harmed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every admin should grep all of their HTML srouce code for these malicious strings : DoubleClick adsense google-analytics searchmarketing.yahoo.comIf you find any of those in your pages , delete them immediately before your users are harmed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every admin should grep all of their HTML srouce code for these malicious strings:DoubleClick   adsense   google-analytics  searchmarketing.yahoo.comIf you find any of those in your pages, delete them immediately before your users are harmed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743237</id>
	<title>Re:Good idea, but...</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1255527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even simpler than that - as the Googlebot identifies itself, it's trivial to have special content served up if Googlebot requests a page.  You don't have to use robots.txt to hide anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even simpler than that - as the Googlebot identifies itself , it 's trivial to have special content served up if Googlebot requests a page .
You do n't have to use robots.txt to hide anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even simpler than that - as the Googlebot identifies itself, it's trivial to have special content served up if Googlebot requests a page.
You don't have to use robots.txt to hide anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741983</id>
	<title>Re:Gentlemen, check your Webmaster tools</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1255511400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do. It's the thing you said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
It 's the thing you said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
It's the thing you said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29744503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29750193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0052231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29744503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29742189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29750193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29753495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29745299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0052231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29741929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0052231.29743001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
