Google+ is being described as a Facebook killer so it may come as some surprise that the most 'circled' (followed) user on the site is none other than Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg.
Google just launched its latest social networking effort last week. However, already, the service has garnered enough positive praise that the tech industry feels Facebook and Twitter should be worried. Whether or not that is genuinely the case remains to be seen, however, it seems Mark Zuckerberg has wasted no time familiarizing himself with the competition.
Just a couple of days after G+ opened in private beta, users noticed that the Facebook founder had also signed up for the service. His profile was quickly shared in public and private streams as people pointed his presence out to their respective Circles. The page was verified by tech blogger Robert Scoble who claimed to have spoken to Mark about its authenticity. This past weekend we learned that despite the fact that Mr. Zuckerberg has yet to post anything to his public stream, he is the most 'circled' person on Google+. So far, 34,759 people have added him to their circles. In contrast, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have 23,633 and 18,715 followers, respectively.
For those not in the know, the act of 'circling' someone is similar to Twitter's "follow". Contrary to Facebook's 'friend' feature, Circles does not require both people to accept before establishing a connection. Though Mark Zuckerberg is in my circles, he has not added me to his, so I can't see anything he's posting (unless he feels inspired to post something to his public stream). So who has Mark circled? Mostly people from Facebook. Everything else about his profile is hidden aside from his location (Palo Alto), his gender (male) and his introduction ("I make things"). He has no photos, Buzz updates, videos or posts set to public.
Big surprise there.
Big surprise there.
Because people cry when security is enhanced. People want 100% usability and simplicity while wanting 100% security but will CRY when strong security features are implemented. If you think development is so easy by just spatting "how hard can it be to iterate a list of blacklisted...bla bla bla" then why aren't you doing it? DDoS has been known for years but it is still extremely difficult to prevent. Will you come to everyone's rescue for a 100% awesome and expandable mechanism since you think it is easy???
What does security have to do with anything?
I'm a professional developer (outside of a bedroom) and let me tell you that it IS easy to develop a simple spam filter. It is incredibly easy.
DDoS prevention doesn't even come into the equation...
I'd wager that people would cry far less about a few small security measures than they currently do about the absurd spambots. In fact, a number of other sites I frequent have some of those measure in place and I have yet to hear any complaining about them.
I can't speak for alexkitch, but I do do development. I do it every day. And yes, most of these simple security measures are pretty easy to implement.
DDoS != spam. DDoS attacks exploit a physical vulnerability of the technology (i.e. the servers hardware can't physically handle huge numbers of requests simultaneously) while spambots exploit a software vulnerability (i.e. this site's code makes little or no attempt to detect or hinder spammers).
I doubt tom's would let me at their servers, but there are plenty of tools readily available already .
My guess is that spam blocking isn't really that big a priority for the devs, which is unfortunate.
I have to agree it is unfortunate. It seems the comments here are dying and I thinks that is part of what brings people back. The news isn't fresh here either. It's the community and that is dying.
I can't speak for alexkitch, but I do do development. I do it every day. And yes, most of these simple security measures are pretty easy to implement.
DDoS != spam. DDoS attacks exploit a physical vulnerability of the technology (i.e. the servers hardware can't physically handle huge numbers of requests simultaneously) while spambots exploit a software vulnerability (i.e. this site's code makes little or no attempt to detect or hinder spammers).
I doubt tom's would let me at their servers, but there are plenty of tools readily available already .
My guess is that spam blocking isn't really that big a priority for the devs, which is unfortunate.
As the banhammer here with over 1100 kills I can tell you I am busy terminating these spambots as they come up ... as are the two other mods who monitor news comments.
The developers are busy revamping the site ... which you would know if you took the time to go to the parent site and access the Beta.
With nearly a dozen mirrors in half a dozen languages and getting more than 40,000 hits per hour this is no simple web site of the likes that you have probably played with ... this is the big time ... sites with rankings under 1200 on Alexa are huge ... with massive server space requirements spread all over the place.
Toms is one of the oldest sites on the net, and services geeks all over the planet ... and I'd like to think we do it well.
We have 20 volunteer moderators like me who give it our best to help out others who share an interest in computing ... and we have some awesome staff here too.
Put it this way ... if Skynet ever does become intelligent we will know about it here first.
Honestly, while the spambots are annoying, you guys really do a great job taking care of them. I know I report probably 2-3 spambots most times I hit an article that just recently posted, and by the time I check the comments a second time (Usually 30mins to an hour later), the adverts are gone. Keep it up, you guys do great! Some people are just whiners, and can't stand to be annoyed for even a second...
We could just ban one very large country (the one that invented firecrackers) and solve most of the problem ... but what about all of the good people there who deserve access to a great tech site?
We keep bashing away nuking the spam for those people ... so they can enjoy something we take for granted here.
So its a case of the price you pay for freedom on the net.
/gets off milkcrate
Anyway ... sorry Jane.