A Harmful Site in Google Directory

[jonathanpark]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop&q=newgie.com

 

Editors, please confirm that this is not harmful to our machines otherwise should be delisted. Thanks

[nea]

I can't answer this, but to make it easier for those who can, here's the relevant category link: http://dmoz.org/News/Personalized_News/

 

(jonathanpark, please make sure that when posting directory links, you post dmoz.org links and not google.com - that being said, of course we appreciate any heads-up about potentially unlistable sites.)

[jonathanpark]

I can't answer this, but to make it easier for those who can, here's the relevant category link: http://dmoz.org/News/Personalized_News/

 

(jonathanpark, please make sure that when posting directory links, you post dmoz.org links and not google.com - that being said, of course we appreciate any heads-up about potentially unlistable sites.)

 

nea,

 

If i dont post google.com link here, how do you guys know that there is a warning for this url?

 

Can you please explain to me why we cannot post google.com link?

 

But you still havent answered my question. Why there is a warning in Google directory? Do this site really harmful to our machine. If that is the case, why not get this link delisted? Thanks

[spectregunner]

Because we are not Google.

[gimmster]

We have no control over what Google do with our data, including how often they update their directory listings (which are copied from us).

 

We cannot directly affect the Google directory listings, so linking to their categories is useless for us. We only have access to the original dmoz.org categories.

 

As for the warning interstitial - we have no control over that either. This is not the place to deal with Google issues, but the info about the warnings can be read at http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/google-flags-pages-that-install.html

[jonathanpark]

Thanks for clearing this up...

 

We have no control over what Google do with our data, including how often they update their directory listings (which are copied from us).

 

We cannot directly affect the Google directory listings, so linking to their categories is useless for us. We only have access to the original dmoz.org categories.

 

As for the warning interstitial - we have no control over that either. This is not the place to deal with Google issues, but the info about the warnings can be read at http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/google-flags-pages-that-install.html

[chaos127]

No, but if the site is harmful in the way suggested by google, it's perhaps not a good candidate for inclusion in the ODP. Although we don't have any control over what google does, there's no reason we can't take advantage of their classification to help improve the quality of our directory.

 

It might help us investigate that site if we had more of an idea of what the (potential) issue is...

[jonathanpark]

No, but if the site is harmful in the way suggested by google, it's perhaps not a good candidate for inclusion in the ODP. Although we don't have any control over what google does, there's no reason we can't take advantage of their classification to help improve the quality of our directory.

 

It might help us investigate that site if we had more of an idea of what the (potential) issue is...

 

chaos127, i agree with you entirely.

 

Editors, please help to investigate further...If it really harmful to our machines then not worth to keep.

[informator]

The site is no longer listed in ODP: http://dmoz.org/News/Personalized_News/

[Callimachus]

Odd, if you go to the link provided by the Google "warning" page it says there is no report found for that URL. A visit to the Newgie site brings up no warnings on my machine's assorted malware scanners and a look through the source shows nothing immediately or apparently harmful. Except possibly the google tracking script.

 

I'm puzzeled as this is the first time I have seen this message on a search by Google. Moreso as the site seems innocuous enough.

[motsa]

Did you just look at the main page or did you actually enter the site? I wouldn't necessarily call it innocuous -- the thing tries to set a ton of cookies and won't let you continue unless you let it.

[Callimachus]

Did you just look at the main page or did you actually enter the site? I wouldn't necessarily call it innocuous -- the thing tries to set a ton of cookies and won't let you continue unless you let it.

 

Outside their ability to be used for tracking, cookies are pretty innocuous - if annoying. And yes, I could navigate the site with cookies turned off.

[motsa]

I'm not saying the cookies are the problem. What it does while it prompts you for the cookies is the problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

[Callimachus]

I'm not saying the cookies are the problem. What it does while it prompts you for the cookies is the problem. We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

 

I guess it must be doing something I'm missing then. It asked to set a cookie , I said no and that was the end of that. Not that caustion isn't a good thing - it is - I just haven't discovered the problem with this site yet. *shrug*

 

As always YMMV.

[pdub]

Sorry to revive the post, but I thought the overall theme was an interesting one, and wanted to add a few things.

 

I turned off all cookies (in FF) and appeared to be able to browse the site without any requests to set a cookie.

 

The report link in the Google interstitual goes to a third party reporting site (SBW) , which performs their own independent review of sites. In this case, Google has submitted the site to SBW, but they have not performed an evaluation. No report just means is that the site is pending review.

 

Being a news index, it's possible they have unintentionally linked to malware sites in the past. It's also possible that the shear amount of javascript being used, and the way in which it is used, on the site tripped Google's testing algorithm, causing it to be added to the SBW index. One of the criteria for being classified as "badware" is the following: software that includes ... slowed computer processing and when personal information is collected without your permission. It's possible that they have unintentionally failed on these fronts.

 

Not that it matters much, but having said all of the above, I personally agree with the decision to remove it from the directory. Google has far more resources dedicated to evaluating a site than I do. However, if I were them (and, for the record, I'm not), and I wasn't doing anything malicious, I would go to SBW and ask for a review of the site. I assume that by receiving a clean bill of health, the malware designation from Google could easily be lifted. At that time, I would hope that the ODP editors would make it a priority to re-instate the site, based on the situation.