Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: How do I read referral logs?

  • Subject: Re: How do I read referral logs?
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:06:17 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <1135888963.269097.189010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns973BA4FEA6AA4castleamber@> <dp3hq8$16f5$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <Xns973C700E2A7B0castleamber@> <dp3r4p$m6o$01$1@news.t-online.com> <Xns973C7C9093754castleamber@> <dp41p6$ajq$02$1@news.t-online.com> <Xns973C8F73EF43Acastleamber@>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [John Bokma] on Friday 30 December 2005 20:06 \__

> "Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "John Bokma" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns973C7C9093754castleamber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> "Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> [ Referer spam ]
>>>> I am not seeing 80% either. I have viewed my raw logs against both
>>>> the webalizer and modlogan. It seems pretty good. I get referrer
>>>> spam every now and then but not bad like 80% maybe around 10 - 15%.
>>> Still sounds quite high to me, I guess I get around 1-2% but to be
>>> honest that's a wild guess. If you add up bots that pretend to be
>>> direct hits, it might be higher, maybe 5-7% (another wild guess), but
>>> that's not really spamming the referer.
>> Well, I was guessing also.:-) I wouldn't know unless I set and figure
>> it all out.. To tell you the truth it isn't worth figuring to me. I
>> skim through the raw logs on occasion to make sure it is all ok with
>> the other stat programs. It looks about right from the eyeing. I see
>> it(spam) every now and then sometimes it is higher than other times.
> Yeah, actually I found just two spammers today :-D.
>> But I can say for sure it isn't 80%.
> Maybe Roy considers Google a spammer too ;-)

No, Google are kind to me. *smile*

>> I think with all of the referrers
>> and this is for those who take my images I could say it would bring it
>> up to 15%. It isn't spam, but it isn't good referring hits either.
> Yeah, leechers. I check those now and then with a small script, and if
> they are annoying, I block them, or the entire domain that hosts them
> (like myspace, blogspot, etc).

That's never an ideal solution. However, leeches can really raise the hosting
bills, so when thresholds are approached, it's worth cutting down where it
hurts the least -- HotLinking. Some of them would grab a 200KB JPEG and use
it as their background picture. Pure HotLinking. If it's just one site,
updating the blacklists is easy. It becomes impractical when this happens
too often.

I get around 10,000 referrals per month from Google Images, which to many is
just "Google Images", not an actual Web site. Yes, they think Google owns
the images! So HotLinking seems like the easier way. It is most problematic
when large (and supposedly trustworthy) sites do it. They get high traffic
that actually gives inertia stolen graphics. Dvorak Uncensored is a perfect
example of that.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index