Thursday 28 July 2016

This blog has been invaded by Russia! I have no idea why, but I'm thinking of contacting NATO (or Google)

I gave blogging a rest last week, partly because of the heat wavelet (I stop functioning above 75°F no matter how many industrial-strength fans I have trained on me), partly because watching the news became more interesting than commenting on it, and partly because I had to write an article about the forgotten Inkling, Charles Williams. When I returned to the fray, I checked my recent page views to see if anyone was still visiting this site.  The traffic figures, in Trumpspeak, were YUGE!

This happens now and then, usually when someone is kind enough to tweet a link to something I've written, or one of my posts is mentioned on another website. So I'm used to one or two-day spikes, but this current spike has lasted for at least a week, and I can tell from the page views for individual posts that genuine traffic has been pretty normal. So I did something I normally never do, and checked the type of browser generating these hundreds of extra phantom visits, their geographical origin, and the time of day they were supposed to have taken place. The answers were: Internet Explorer (!), Russia, and one or two big, short-lived spikes a day.

I googled the phenomenon and discovered it's fairly common. The pages views are being automatically generated by spam bots (i.e. robots). The next question, of course, is why? Hard to say, really. Data mining? Just for a lark? If this was a commercial site, and I was either relying on income from advertising or I was a company trying to lure potential customers to my site, I'd probably consider doing something about it (there's a comprehensive article on the subject available here). But as long as I can see how many genuine visits individual articles are generating, it's fine. Google is effective at filtering out those maddening spam comments advertising penis enlargement aids, child pornography or roofing services in Crudbucket, Arkansas (it's for this reason that commenters are asked to prove they're not robots). But as long as the spam bot invasion doesn't affect readers, it's not a problem.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to keep quiet and hope the invading hordes realise this tiny pimple of a blog isn't worth bothering about, and that they turn  their attention elsewhere. (Or maybe Google is amassing a cyber-army to repel these attacks as I speak - they're probably better-resourced than Britain's armed forces.)

Apropos of nothing, my two most popular posts of all time were about Monty Don's dog, Nigel (around 5,000) and Serena Williams's brattishness (just under 7,000). Make of that what you will. As I doubt whether you really want to ogle Serena Williams, I'll leave you with some pictures of the star of this blog, and his new companion, Nell:





6 comments:

  1. Re Serena: Nice to see the re-emergence of the word "rebarbative". Thought it had died out in the 1920s, but it rolls so deliciously round the mouth that it is great to see it in use again. BTW I never did manage to find out what it meant!

    ReplyDelete
  2. @helen agreed, the word is delicious.

    In the original French it literally means beard-to-beard which does make me imagine two Orson Welles circa Mr Arkadin types facing off inches from each other, eyes on fire and moments from tearing each other to shreds

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that. But I shall try not to carry that picture in my mind, or the word will lose its charm.

      Delete
    2. Revolting, repellent, repugnant... rebarbative. English just seems to excel when it comes to expressing disgust - although I think "rebarbative" is closer to annoying, disturbing and vexing rather than outright repulsion.

      I'm having trouble picturing two "Confidential Report"-era Orson Welleses managing a beard-to-beard confrontation, gogilesgo, rather than belly-to-belly. Welles hadn't reached "Touch of Evil" proportions by that stage, but still. But I definitely get your drift.

      Delete
  3. I must confess I was completely unaware of Serena's brattish behaviour. Women's tennis holds few attractions for me these days. And it may be sexist (no, actually it is sexist!) but I always liked the pretty, feminine girls that played during my youth. Evert, Goolagong and the young Sue Barker. Attractive, didn't have biceps like Arnie, they certainly held my attention as a young chap.
    I'd always thought that Serena had behaved with good grace, even on those rare occasions when she lost. Disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never been able to warm to Serena, ever since she lost with such bad grace to Sharapova in their first meeting at Wimbledon (one of only two losses suffered by Williams against the lanky Russian in 20 meetings). But I'll admit to feeling a bit guilty in recent years, as, on the few occasions that I could be bothered watching, Williams has - as you say - been extremely gracious in defeat, even managing to smile and congratulate her opponents as if she meant it. And she seems to have curbed her tendency to abuse officials. Also, it seems that many of the younger players on the tour like her, while Sharapova is considered a frigid stuck-up sticky-beak. I just don't like Serena's playing style, or her on-court demeanour, or the way she regularly hunches forward and shrieks: it's just not attractive. Still, fair's fair - she has evidently made an effort to behave like a true champion (no doubt she read my post and adjusted her behaviour accordingly!)

      Garbiñe Muguruza seems a breath of fresh air after brawny Serena and all those interchangeable Eastern Europeans.

      Delete