Casualties in Somalia

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Do a search for the above in Google.

Geeze, Somalia must have a LOT of on-line pharmacies.

Good place to learn about how to spam G.


John Merrell
Gateway Farm Alpacas

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not only that the 1st site will try to infect your computer with a Trojan
Horse! I didn't look any further. Just wanted to warn people before they go
and look!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only if you want to get your computer infected.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I tried number 5 or 6 before I read this post. Same result.. My viruskiller
went into overdrive.

Re:Casualties in Somalia

Going to an .ru site without a hardware and software firewall, an
with js on would be kind of silly now, wouldn't it?  Especially if on
is using IE

Anyway, they have approximately the top 75 slots for that SERP.

Pretty incredible.  Not a cached page in the lot of them either

Almost as good for us casualties in somalia

So, why did they target that SERP?  And how is it that they dominat

it so completely

Anyone look at the js and try to figure what they are doing there

This is pretty suspicious



Just thought this might make for some good discussion her


Posted via /

Re: Re:Casualties in Somalia

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And one is suppose to know not to go to a .ru site? I have protection
though, but not everyone has and not everyone knows not to go to those

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And how many people would be searching for this anyway? They can have the

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't know, it seems kind of stupid if you ask me, because who would be
searching for that phrase anyway?

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I would think they are trying to load up some adware also.

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Stacey wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is history now, not current events, but the US did have
troops in Somalia,and some were indeed wounded and killed,
so the search prhases "US casualties in Somalia" or
"casualties in Somalia" would be natural query strings for
anyone researching the topic -- say, for instance, a student
writing a brief paper on the subject for a political science
class, perhaps comparing the US presence in Somalia with the
US presences in Viet Nam, Haiti, or Iraq.

cat yronwode

Hoodoo Herb and Root Magic

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True, on rare occasions someone doing a paper. But, to hijack a SERP to for
pharmacy it isn't very smart as it wouldn't be a widely used SERP was what I
am saying. It would make more sense taking a different SERP. Plus, someone
doing a paper to me, would probably search for US in Somalia, or Military
Actions in Somalia, Conflicts in Somalia, etc.

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True enough.  But, there they sit with the top 74 spots.  Yahoo gets it
right.  G doesn't.  How did they do it?  Can it be replicated?  What does it
say about the G algo?

Answer those questions right and you can retire in 6 months.


Re: Casualties in Somalia

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:15:59 -0800, "Gateway Farm"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It leaves much to be desired.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

         home of SEO that's shiny!

Re: Casualties in Somalia

Gateway Farm wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have no answers, but i did a little checking and found out
that the phamacies that control < casualities in somalia >
do NOT control < causalties in ethiopia > or < casualties in
abyssinia >.

The meaninless phrase < casualties in sumatriptan >
(sumatriptan is an anti-migraine drug) does bring up 3 URLs
(ranked #4, 5, and 6) with the google snippet < causalties
in somalia > as well as the word sumatriptan.

But, surprisingly, the prase < casualties in sumatra > (a
possible typo for sumatriptan) brings up none of the
phamacies in the top 10 -- just news stories about an
earthquake in Sumatra.

So i focused on "Somalia." The #1 and 2 spots for <
pharmacies in comalia > were from the same folks, but the
rest of the top 10 entries looked legitimate.

The phrase < prescriptions in somalia > producd a
wall-to-wall block of the same online pharmacies that
control < casualties in somalia >.

And, predictably, they do NOT appear on a search for <
prescriptions in ethiopia >.

I don't know what to make of it other than that it looks
almost as if this were a test phrase or something, like
ultramarine negritude was, a while back.

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Spells Archive ------

Re: Casualties in Somalia

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:15:59 -0800, "Gateway Farm"  wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Casualties in Somalia gives 135,000 in Google.

"Casualties in Somalia" gives 5,050 in Google, from which only 276 are
shown (so less than 276 domains found using this exact phrase).

"Casualties in Somalia" ru gives 3,830 in Google, from which 143 are
shown (so less than 143 domains found using this exact phrase with the
word ru associated (most likely our spam sites)).

So of the 5,050 pages found up to 3,830 (75%) are from our spam sites.

"Casualties in Somalia" -ru

Which is searching for the exact phrase without the word ru present.
Since ru is the tld of the sites it excludes all the spammy site.

This gives just 559 results of which just 189 are shown (which means
the rest are on the same sites as the 189).

If you compare this to the -ru search you can see the numbers don't
add up perfectly (should be over 1000 results), but it's close enough
(right ball park figures).

So we have a SERP with under 276 domains (lets assume 250 sites since
some will be listed twice) using that exact phrase. From these 50% to
75% are owned by the spammers.

It would also appear from looking at the "Casualties in Somalia" -ru
results the spammers own a lot of the non ru sites as well, most have
no cache!!

Basically the SERP is dominated by spammers because they won so many
domains and no one else is interested in the SERP. If someone tried
this with a competitive SERP where links are important they would be
lucky to get one site in the top 50.

It is interesting how Google hasn't removed the spammy sites though. I
didn't do a detailed analysis, but they are clearly using cloaking

I suspect since the interest in the NG and the way it's mirrored on
multiple websites the SERP will change quite dramatically over the
next few weeks as some of the higher quality sites become relevant to
this SERP. This post will likely do quite well.

BTW what made you search for Casualties in Somalia in the first place?
Seems a bit on the morbid side, though yesterday my eldest son was
researching the effects of charitable donations (Ban Aid etc...) on
survival rates in famine stricken regions and was doing some similar
searches (trying to determine if more or less people survive due to

-- /

Re: Casualties in Somalia

willybfriendly wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The string translates to:



Re:Casualties in Somalia

Interesting.  Just a bit of poking around finds thi

"Note: The trojan has the abillity to update itself; the fil

extensions of the DLLs change from .dll to .new when updated

"At different stages of system infection, the Trojan contacts th

following site, presumably to notify interested parties of it

No wonder it's in hex. (I deactivated the links

Anyone bothered to figure out what Google sees?  Y gets this SER

right.  G is thrown for a loop


Posted via /

Site Timeline