Dear Blog UK. On a page of ten or so ‘posts’ coming through the system, precisely four were genuine bloggers.
Why, BCUK, don’t you look at your daily pages of ‘new posts’ which have obvious titles about what services are being sold or required. Once you’ve done that simple bit of research, you can apply some basic filters to stop a large percentage of the spam arriving through your portals. You’re meant to be internet technology savvy aren’t you, (perhaps, even computer science savvy) so, why are you choosing not to do one of the basic and simplest things that computer systems can be set up to do, to keep inappropriate mail off their systems?
APPLY SYSTEM FILTERS PLEASE, BCUK. If you really love having all the dross from the internet coming your way, then open up a sub-site specially for it and filter all the sludge through there.
Below, is the first paragraph of a post that appears to be telling everyone to do on-line surveys otherwise you could miss out on some profit.
Tap dancing through some other posts on the same blog site, it can be seen that the blogger is linked to, and is probably profiteering from spam.
A brief scout about the profile tells you very little, and what is there is hardly to be trusted. A Sherpa who has been there before me, has usefully tagged the word ‘spam’ onto the blog site user.
If you see a post starting with the following paragraph, steer clear of it and the blogger,isiahavila410. In fact, if lots people mark it, and any other productions, as inappropriate content, so much the better.
“Ideal at the outset of this piece of writing it really should be recognized that not all online survey websites are ripoffs. You should really not walk absent from every single opportunity that arrives your way and this report does not recommend that you do. When deciding upon the best on the net compensated survey web sites you should really choose with treatment and workout caution. Scam web-sites do exist there is no getting absent from that truth.line surveys and not miss out on financial gain…”
* Oleg Vokhmyanin
The guy above is contacting for dating and sex via the private messaging system. The minimal details says he is based in London.
Personally, I do not wish to receive mail or posts like this, I find it distasteful and an abuse of the BCUK messaging,(or posting for that matter) systems. I have reported the matter and blocked the sender.
Once I am sure this is being suitably dealt with I will delete the message.
If you receive a similar mail shot and are not happy with the approach, you would be doing everyone a favour by hitting the ‘report as inappropriate mail’ link, and of course, you have the option to block the user.
Today in America it has been a momentous day. For the rest of the interested English-speaking global community, it has been a culmination of over-drooling, over-hyping and over-speaking, especially by the BBC.
I was hopping mad when the presenters on TV BBC1 had the temerity to constantly talk over the progression of the ceremony. As a result, I did not know the identity of the lady in grey who sang in soul sound till about half way through; then I discovered it was Aretha Franklin. The first few musical phrases of John Williams’ piece, being played by some exquisite performers, was totally lost with BBC unwanted chat. Then the presenters drowned out the introduction and nearly the words of the swearing-in of the vice president.
There was an excellent mistress of ceremonies in Ms Feinstein, who was a very good speaker, why on earth did others feel they needed to pitch in and drown out her and the main performers?
After all, it was an English language ceremony, the watching English-speaking public did not need voice-overs or translators. The reporters obviously had a need to demonstrate the relevance of their presence, to justify the costs of their jamboree to the license payer.
Thank heavens the commentators managed to shut up for Obama’s superb and important oration and for the final presentation by the elderly Pastor who gave a message of hope that all could relate to, with grace and humour.
Yet for all that, you could hear the commentators had real problems containing themselves; they were almost wetting themselves, trying to get the first wise words of analysis out into the media. Save us from the BBC press corp!
Last night I watched Esther Rantzen walk through loss of a partner and ways of preparing for a good death. I found it compulsive viewing. Why oh why was it on so late, 11pm -1am.
Death is not in my view, a taboo subject; we know it is inevitable. One of the core tenets of the programme was about honest and effective communication with everyone involved with the death of a loved one, including the person who was dying.
Was this programme deemed too sensitive, too disturbing, to be shown at a time when a large section of the population might be viewing? If so, I think the media managers are reinforcing an inappropriate sense of taboo; they are denying the subject the major dissemination it should have and the widespread honesty that it craves and deserves.