What is Digg?68 Comments
- geuisteses, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39About time.
- rsplatpc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40I got a pop up when I clicked on www.netscape.com, it said WARNING - RIP OFF ARTIST
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=seriall.com&btnG=Search
- traherom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Er... what pop up are you guys talking about? For me, it just gives a page like this:
http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.seriall.com/ - itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18not sure about this, having a pop up is not as nice as having a script with data next to a given search link
there's a firefox plugin that does this for me - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16glad they finally got something for the people that arent really smart on the internet, like new pc users, etc etc.
- terrenceshaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Good first step. It would even be better if you could set a malware level that would not even return these sites as part of your search.
- Shamonue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I've been using the SiteAdvisor from McAfee at , http://www.siteadvisor.com/ , it works with IE and Firefox as an extension. After you load it you can do a search on google, and it will show you if the site is safe or not beside the results.
- ilselu1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Corporate Accountability??? *shock and awe*
- maverick808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Anyone got an example of a page I can search for that Google would warn on? I can't find any.
- Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Right. Because we all know...
1) Mcafee gets loads more page hits than Google does.
2) Everyone you know uses Siteadvisor on a daily basis for their searching.
3) Siteadvisor is way more practical than an extension that you don't have to download.
I don't mind a Microsoft bashing once in awhile. Making sense while trolling might help the cause though... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"It sounds like a nice idea, but I think it's just going to enforce a false sense of security."
False sense of security is better than no security at all. At least it gets people thinking "Hey, you know, there are websites out there dedicated to harming my machine." - n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I noticed this yesterday...caught me off guard at first.
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6ahh, seriall.com is more popular than I thought. I was about to post the google link for it but it turns out that you already did :P
- KageKonjou, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Why is it I sense a lawsuit coming from this? This is going to be no different than that website who sued for a bad pagerank.
"You marked my site as spyware-ridden! LAWSUIT, LAWSUIT, LAWSUIT!!!" - Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I doubt this will be a serious problem for google.
The court considered google's search results as protected free speech, as google's opinion on what sites are relevant. On the same grounds their "opinions" about danger should be protected.
The precedent that *even if it hurts a site* google can rank people where it wants should apply to google's warnings of danger. - cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8no, it just means one extra click to get the goods
- jgclark123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I believe you mean "tubes".
- VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8ding ding ding
- ilselu1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was applauding them for their effort. I don't think that they should be liable for the stupidity of the people using their svc, but it's nice to see them being proactive (or at least making the effort) in this issue.
- juneof44, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But you can still view the cache of the "bad" page and click links within the cache to break the Google Cache frameset without getting any warnings.
- itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3well, pop up, new page, its not as useful as the phishing block
- smohan123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Excellent.
This is a great idea to aid those computer users who are less web-savvy and might potentially plague their (usually vulnerable) computers with spyware- and adware-riddled websites. As a person who regularly gets asked to help destroy such unwanted malware, this seems to me to be a great first line of defense.
Naturally, there needs to be some sort of petitioning system for websites that feel they have been incorrectly labelled as "potentially harmful", and also a way for websites to show that they've cleaned up their act -- so to speak -- if they wish to be removed from the blacklist.
I think that with Google's history of innovative and trendsetting practices, this story should come as no surprise. Two thumbs up! - kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hopefully this will keep lots of pipes clean.
- Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you have Firefox + Greasemonkey, the following script makes things a lot easier:
http://johnbokma.com/firefox/greasemonkey/google-unsafe-sites.html - dvws, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Lanser84
There is a difference though, if i put out a site with a list of the 100 best celebrities of all time, it would be based on my opinion, and Paris Hilton couldn't sue me for not putting her on the list. But, if I published an article about her having a penis or AIDS or something like that, and it wasn't true couldn't she sue me for defamation? - peregrine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sooo lets see here.....I use something called http://www.opendns.com its crazy I know. But its faster and safer soo I'm good. Thanks google but I got that already. :)
- dvws, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Giving a site bad pagerank is one thing, but it seems to me that incorrectly flagging a site as malicious and telling it's potential customers that visiting the site will harm their computer would be a much more serious situation.
- eloisaestefania, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Great contribution from google to keep us informed of the "dangers" some websites can be to our computers!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting I've never seen this before. I guess I happen to find legit sites. I'm also not the type that does a lot of dirty-word searching so that could help. Checked it out though, pretty cool.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No Linux version???
Oh wait... - toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My thoughts exactly. This is like going to the doctor for a problem, he tells you there are several medicines you can take, you choose one and he tells you that one also gives you cancer. Just give me the ones that aren't bad for me!
- patterson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I never got that pagerank thing, nor those who threatened to sue because they had their site removed from Google's index... Google have no responsibility to index sites, and surely, with it being their index don't they have the right to remove anyone at anytime? I don't understand how people can seriously consider sueing for things like this...
I'm pretty sure a while ago I read something about a company suing Google because they had their site removed from the search results by Google, and they sued because it was causing them to lose customers to competitors and such, but I don't understand... where is it written that Google *can't* 'just remove' a site from their index... doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, away from that confusion. I realise that it's much different here - it would be understandable for a company to get annoyed if Google incorrectly flag their site as dangerous. I think the database McAffe use actually only marks sites as 'dangerous' or whatever if there is actual spyware/adware etc. on the site. Wouldn't that in itself prevent any lawsuits, if sites are only flagged if there is sold evidence of malware? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because maybe you're browsing the site from a Linux or Mac machine and want to see the contents of the site???
- Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dvws
Your point is well taken. - toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, but they are still sites that are trying to harm computers so why would you want to visit them, even if you are "immune."
- giovani, on 01/31/2009, -0/+1SCREENSHOT: http://tinyurl.com/djhlwu
- Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1okely doke. Hard to tell sarcasm from blunt statements sometimes. Mod me down.
- surfing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3compare that to Apple articles today.
- keybear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Torrentspy has been hit bigstyly, not that i was on there...but a "friend" told me, he left the site with 13 different parts, just from visiting it.
- jtjenn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4That is VERY good, cause I got spyware on mine once after googling.
- critic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate tracker pages that do that.
I gave up on BT after a tracker burned Adult Friend Finder into my system so bad, the only way I could banish it was by doing a fresh install. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That would mean you would have to assume that people using Google only use Windows. The cancer analogy is a bad one because many computers (i.e. Linux, Mac, etc...) aren't affected by "cancer".
- ChosunBimbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0INteresting - there seems to be two ways Google is going about this, you get this warning when clicking from a Google search results page:
http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.seriall.com/
and now a 403 page asking you to enter a code before going to the results - especially using the google bar in firefox:
http://www.google.com/sorry/?continue=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dseriall.com%26btnG%3DSearch - super100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0google should do this early. the spyware is killing me.
- surfing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Great question
- wdavisut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Awesome! Now, how about a warning for, "The site you are about to visit may contain porn."
- dodd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2why don't just exclude bad sites from results?
- Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Are you saying Google should have been accountable to warn users against all possibly risky sites before they put this feature out?
What does this comment mean? -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is