The Dark Side of Paid Search 125
Tough Lefty writes "A new study by McAfee's SiteAdvisor Web ratings finds that sponsored results from some of the biggest names in the search engine business contain spyware, spam, scams and other Internet menaces. The key findings were that major search engines returned risky sites in their search results for popular keywords and sponsored results contained two to four times as many dangerous sites as organic results. Overall, MSN search results had the lowest percentage (3.9%) of dangerous sites while Ask search results had the highest percentage (6.1%). Google was in between (5.3%). Check the comprehensive study for all the data."
Dark side of the Paid Search? (Score:5, Funny)
and if there is no room on my hard drive (whoa-hoa-hooooo)
and if your head explodes with scam site search results too,
I'll see you on the dark side of Paid Search (whooooaaaooo - hoooo whooaaaa-oh!)
Search Eclipsed (Score:2)
There is no dark side of the Paid Search really... matter of fact it's all dark.
Re:Dark side of the Paid Search? (Score:2)
is the root of all evil today.
Re:Dark side of the Paid Search? (Score:2)
The lunatic is on the grass.
...
Got to keep the loonies on the path.
Re:Dark side of the Paid Search? (Score:1)
Re:Dark side of the Paid Search? (Score:2)
Click on dubious links... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, is this even remotely news?
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, is this even remotely news?
Percentage of paid search results makes this at least mildly intesting.
(mildly offtopic): Has anyone else noticed that when you click on a link in gmail, a new window opens entitled 'wyciwyg'? (before redirecting you to the link)
*heh* What you click is what you get! If only there was some way (that didn't involve liberal beatings) of getting that into your average user's brain!
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2, Insightful)
And, the results aren't too surprising. MSN came in lowest, but at the same time, it's probably the least dependent on generating ad revenue. Google's the biggest, but has a repuation to maintain, so it probably does at least some filtering of advertisers. Ask keeps tring to reinvent itself back to relevance...
--JoeRe:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps. My main point, though I could've done better articulating it, is that the only "news" here is that "Some web search results are dangerous; don't expect (Google|MSN|Ask|whoever) to be your nanny." The fact that most of the search engines had differences that were near the noise margin means there's no real strong conclusions you can draw.
MSN's number is an obvious anomaly that could be explained multiple ways: Microsoft heavily vets its advertisers; advertisers don't think MSN's worth advertis
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
I actually saw it in Galeon, but I'm sure its the same thing!
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:5, Funny)
Babies
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com
Google is directing you to baby sellers! Alert the press this is EVIL!!
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Buy it Now: $300,000.00
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:1)
Those are the most annoying ads: Meta ads that claim to have "everything you're looking for" and end up just being some crappy sort of meta page that has nothing immediately useful.
Ebay's pretty obvious when it comes up. There are others that are more annoying.
--JoeRe:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
i hope something changes soon because i am getting tired of unscrupulous asshats poisoning my search results.
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:3, Funny)
The one for wife is funny too:
Wife for less
Looking for Wife?
Find exactly what you want today
www.eBay.com
I already have one, but one for less sounds very enticing.
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Buy Happiness
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:1)
Insolvenz
1 - 2 - 3 - meins!
www.ebay.de
Seems to me you can buy all sorts of fantastic stuff at eBay...
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:1)
Peddling Pussy (Score:2)
I think they restrict sales of live animals on EBay. Now if you sold stuffed pussy...
exactly (Score:3)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
http://news.google.com/news?q=google [google.com]
Eric
Reality vs. Fantasy: a juxtaposition [memwg.com]
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
How is clicking on the first result from a Google search dubious?
I have a mental filter which ignores those, but I was with an aunt who did a Google search and naturally clicked on the first result before I could yell "no, don't click those ones!"
How can you expect the general public to not think the first results from the best search engine aren't safe? That's like putting an exit ramp off of I95 (along the US east coast) which takes the cars off a cliff...then calling anyone who accident
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:1)
Re:Click on dubious links... (Score:2)
There are still sponsored links in search results? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There are still sponsored links in search resul (Score:2)
Re:There are still sponsored links in search resul (Score:1)
Re:There are still sponsored links in search resul (Score:1)
From TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:From TFA... (Score:2)
Re:From TFA... (Score:1)
There's so much truth in that it may end up in a sig sometime soon.
Re:From TFA... cf "do no evil" (Score:1)
No but some people don't expect Google to sell them down the river for a few bucks to some spammer/scammer. Can't anyone with money uphold there morals?
Re:From TFA... (Score:2)
It's actually a pretty smart thing to do. Novices can't tell the difference between a legitimate site and a scam just by looking at them, but if they know Google ranks search results by popularity, they can assume the legitimate site will be more popular (and thus rank higher) than any scams. Also, businesses willing to pay for advertising (not including spam) are usually legitimate.
There are still some users who are too dumb
Re:From TFA... (Score:2)
Wikipedia entry on PageRank [wikipedia.org]
What I called "popularity" is basically how many other web sites there are that link to a particular page.
I think it not the willingness to pay that is measured, but the assumation that if a respected firm *takes* the advert then it is somehow more legitimate.
I can see your point, but I don't think the average person consciously makes this
Paradox (Score:4, Interesting)
Why we don't have a central organisation that bans spyware/malware sites? Unlike porn, where religious and all kinds of debates open, the worst cases of malware are obvious and good for nothing.
Wouldn't it seem odd to someone if drug dealers advertised their services in newspaper ads? Why isn't it odd they are allowed to reach audience via controlled ads on the search engines?
We also have Yahoo/Ask/Google's ability to filter and review their own ads and remove offensive ads. They also remove them now, but kinda sloow.. kinda lazy... you know... just enough not to hurt their revenue and not be blamed by the public they're doing nothing.
We also have Google eagerly promoting their typosquatting service for domains while saying they don't.
It's a nice example of what greed makes good companies do.
Re:Paradox (Score:2)
Because there will always be one sucker who is poerfectly willing to give up their spare processor cycles and demographic info in exchange for a taskbar icon that tells them what temperature it is outside. It's a sad argument, but a valid one for the purveyors of crapware.
Wouldn't it seem odd to someone if drug de
Re:Paradox (Score:2)
What kind of an argument is that? First if he can't access the site because it's filtered how he will install anything.
And second, if 0.001% of a population prefers to be robbed and tortured for fun, does it mean that robbery and torture should be legal for the rest 99.999% ?
Re:Paradox (Score:1, Redundant)
Not mine, certainly. I'm just playing devil's advocate, and that's the sort of uproar I believe some outside agency declaring their sites blocked would cause in that industry. (And it is an industry.)
Consider how much crapware is actively installed by users who click through the EULA without a second thought, completely missing the fact that they just provided some entity permission to screw their machine and/or privacy, of the sort that might actually stand up in court.
Re:Paradox (Score:2)
Isn't there something in contract law about agreements that force you to give up certain rights are not binding?
Yet, a company can draft a ridiculous EULA and it's taken as gospel truth and the law.
That really needs to change.
Re:Paradox (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paradox (Score:3, Funny)
Honey Monkey (Score:2)
Microsoft's Strider HoneyMonkey Exploit Detection System seems to be working.
Re:Honey Monkey (Score:2)
hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Funny, I just got this in the sidebar from the BBC (Score:2)
It would be nice if search engines would look for known exploits, and they should autocheck the top hits on the top searches.
Didn't realize McAfee bought SiteAdvisor (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hardly surprising, but I don't trust the AV companies. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but they simply have an interest in keep in us scared about viruses and such so that we buy their products.
When SiteAdvisor was independent, I felt I could trust it (partly because they it founded by geeks). Of course, I had no idea how they planned to stay in business, but as a free service it was great. Now I have the perception, at least, that it could have an agenda beyond objective detection of spyware etc. (mainly, scaring the bejeezus out of us).
Re:Didn't realize McAfee bought SiteAdvisor (Score:1)
I was very unhappy when I heard that McAfee bought SiteAdvisor. I had recommended SiteAdvisor to a few clients who's kids were repeatedly screwing up thier machines, and it really seemed useful, seemed to help. I'm sure that McE will have SiteAdvisor all screwed up in a matter of months. Can't blame the guys that came up with SA, hope they got good money and retired to Tahiti or sumpin'...
It's a tough place to be - explaining to mom or dad why they are again paying me to scrape junior's machine. It's an h
Re:Didn't realize McAfee bought SiteAdvisor (Score:2)
web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:2)
Re:web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:2)
Re:web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:2)
Re:web 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:2)
And unfortunately, "licio.us" and "malicio.us" are also taken.
like OMG!!!!11 (Score:4, Funny)
OMG LOOK at those CUTE LI'L Puppies and Kittens on www.screensavers.com !!111 How can a website with LIKE SO MUCH Cuteness be evil ????!!!
screensavers.com just DESERVES it's top "Sponsored Link" spot in Google's results!!1
kthxbye!!
Seach engine filter (Score:2)
Not that any of this is any excuse for the foolish security flaws (IE,running as admin) and naive user actions (installing anything, ignoring EULAs, etc.).
Re:Seach engine filter (Score:2)
Viability of the Ad Based Model (Score:3, Interesting)
Having been exposed to the Internet at a young age (for both it and myself), I've learned over the years never to touch Ads. Whether benign looking links in my Gmail to the annoying flash ads, there is no way I'm touching them. If I need a product, I find the manufacturer or vendor's website and do what I need to there.
So I pose the question, how long will the ad based revenue system remain relevant once your common internetite learns this lesson?
Re:Viability of the Ad Based Model (Score:2)
Re:Viability of the Ad Based Model (Score:1)
I don't think they will learn TBH. If they do, well I w
Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:5, Interesting)
1: Virus
2: Attempted AdWare installs
3: Attempted Spyware installs
4: ActiveX controls
5: Java required
6: Anything else that it attempts to install when you visit
7: Sites that disable, or attempt to, your browser features like Right Click.
8: Sites that are only redirection sites.
and most of all
are you ready?
9: Sites that make themselves anywhere from hard to impossible to exit from afterwards without, at minimum, killing your browser process.
Flagging questionable, along with outright bad, sites would protect users, while likely reducing their traffic - which is what they deserve to have happen to them. More than twice I've used the Google cache to read a site's static content rather than risk visiting them directly.
And while they're at it, add an easily clickable link to tell Google that this site appears gone, or substantially changed from the search result summary and ought to be re-spidered ASAP would be nice too. Enlist your users in identifying bad search results.
Someone who does all this would have a strong hold on my search business.
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:1)
It would be good if that happened, Google is already wildly out of date for pages that have changed months ago.
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
That's not malware. Hushmail, for example, makes legitimate use of Java to do the encryption/decryption on your own machine so that plaintext never touches their servers.
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
That still doesn't mean I wouldn't like to know about it before I go to their site.
Cut 5% of their profits? (Score:2)
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:1)
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Not protect, but inform you ahead of time. There is a difference.
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Still, I think the Google Co-op approach is a far more comprehensive way of addressing this and a whole host of other content-information problems holistically,
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Site Advisor [siteadvisor.com]
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
Re:Why Isn't Google Leading In This Area? (Score:2)
ya, i saw that ad (Score:1)
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
No sh*t, Sherlock (Score:1)
Take McAfee research with a pinch of salt (Score:1)
Have they ever come out and said: "This problem we're investigating... turns out not to be so bad after all, nothing to be alarmed about".
They have a serious conflict of interest. They are worse than investment banks publishing research on companies they own shares in.
An apt comparison may be to pharmaceuticals publishing forecasts for the spread of diseases for which they hold the patents for the cure.
Until I'll see indep
click here (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, it can cost a bit of money to get placed in sponsored results. So where does this money come from, when the sites paying for this high visibilty purportedly offer content for free?
We all knew the answer to that, before this article.
So how financially naive do you have be to click on a sponsored link with 'free' in the description - and not assume there is a hidden string attached?
That is like giving a $20 bill to the guy selling gum on the street in mexico and expecting change. In fact, I knew someone who did something similar to that in thailand. He didn't understand the language or the currency system, so he gave the peddler on the street his entire wad of bills and asked him to take what he owed him. The peddler took the money and ran off. That was his entire budget for the trip.
If clicking sponsored links is commonplace on the internet, common sense has degenerated to moronic levels.
-- "Common sense is for common people." - Dr. Piche
So why don't you change your browser? (Score:1)
WTG MSN!!! (Score:1)
Freeways Cause Automotive Crime (Score:3, Funny)
Representatives from the automotive insurance industry released a self-authored report yesterday that confirmed most freeways lead people through areas that are heavy in traffic, subject to increased probability of colissions and even vandalism and crime.
Auto insurance representatives questioned for the story said the frightening study proves that their product (which provides no guaranteed protection against auto collisions) is absolutely essential to safe driving. When asked why they spend millions of dollars to make sure they are not held liable in all but the most obvious of cases, insurance representatives had not comment, but reminded everybody how dangerous freeways are, and suggested that people should hold the state liable for offering such questional places for people to drive their cars in the first place.
And In Other News... (Score:2)
Google sleaze-setting 3rd cookies for paid search (Score:2)
Sleaazy!
How Does It Compare to Competition? (Score:1)
Re:That's good. (Score:3)
The market will sort it all out - the seller will eventual lose sales as his reputations goes downhill. The invisible hand and all that!
Re:That's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, who needs a centralized protection. It's all natural. See AIDS for example. It's not as if having no immune system affects your life or anything.
Re:That's good. (Score:2, Insightful)
At risk of naively responding to someone who posted something in order to make a point, libertarianism is a philosophy based on the principle that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the same freedom of others. I'm not a libertarian, but I'm guessing they'd lump poisoning (whether the victim is limp-penised or not) under the whole freedom of others thingee.
That said, the interesting part of the discussion (besides connecting the dots in order to eq
Re:That's good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The market will sort it all out - the seller will eventual lose sales as his reputations goes downhill. The invisible hand and all that!
I don't think that you understand libertarianism. Selling rat poison as viagra is breach of the agreement between the seller and the buyer. As such the buyer or buyers heirs can instigate legal proceedings against the seller.
Re:That's good. (Score:2)
Restitution in the afterlife !
Re:That's good. (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea what a libertarian is. Libertarian philosphy can be summarized as "do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anyone else". Selling rat poison in a deceptive way is just as illegal in a libertarian society.
Re:That's good. (Score:1, Offtopic)
I've a gun, and as a libertarian, I believe I have the right to come sneak and shoot you in the back.
As my reputation goes bad, people will get used to growing eyes on their back to see me coming.
Re:That's good. (Score:2)
I already have eyes on my back though.
Re:That's good. (Score:5, Informative)
That [downloadfirefox.net] appears to be an innocuous "download Firefox with Google Toolbar" site. Perhaps you meant the typosquatter [downloadfirefox.com] parked next door?
That [luxuriousity.com] seems to be dead. Ironically, it has a typosquatter [luxuriosity.com] parked next door as well.