-
A common problem with filters is the fact that they are
a one-size-fits all solution to SPAM. The rules are concrete
and only change based on input from updates from the Anti-spam
service.

SPAM changes too quickly to make that method effective.
Additionally, what is SPAM to you may not be to someone else.
That is where Bayesian filters come in.

They are very effective at eliminating SPAM and have
very low false-positive rates for their users.

Bayesian filters are based on Bayesian logic, a branch
of logic named for Thomas Bayes, an eighteenth century
Mathematician.

This type of logic applies to decision making by
determining the probability of a certain event based on the
history of past events.

Using this as a model seemed a logical step for SPAM
filtering. If you can predict what SPAM will look like now
based on what is has looked like in the past, you are halfway to
the solution.

To finish solving the problem, Bayesian filters were
developed to be dynamic and continue to be effective as the SPAM
changes.

Bayesian filters are content based. They look for
characteristics in each email that you receive and calculate the
probability of it actually being SPAM.

These characteristics are generally words in the content
and the header file information that each email contains. They
can also include common SPAM HTML code, word pairs, phrases, and
the location of a phrase in the body of the email.

Typical words in SPAM would be “Free” and “Win”, while
“humility” would probably not appear. The filter begins with a
50% neutral score for the email, and then adds points for SPAM
characteristics.

Likewise, deductions are made for non-SPAM characteristics
present. The total score is calculated and then action is taken
based on its likelihood of being SPAM.

The filter does not assume that all arriving email is
bad, rather that all email is neutral and should be considered
equally.

Bayesian filters are better than traditional content
scoring filters in that they are trained by you to recognize
your email.

A doctor, for example, might have many emails
legitimately using the word “Viagra”. A traditional content
scoring filter would probably shoot that email to the SPAM
folder, or delete it.

This would result in a high false-positive rate for the
doctor, even if you don’t want Viagra emails. The filter will
build a list based on the doctors email use and corrections to
incorrectly marked email.

The initial training period may be a little time consuming,
but once complete offers a tailored solution to SPAM
control for each user.

In addition to protecting the good email, the filter makes
it difficult for Spammers to trick as every filter will have
individual requirements.

That being said, Spammers do have a few weapons in their
arsenal to attempt to circumvent Bayesian filters. The easiest
would be to create SPAM that looks like an everyday letter.

This would remove their ability to use typical marketing
techniques and so is not as likely with normal commercial email.
For the purveyors of fraud, however, this would be easier.

Spammers could also so weight a message with a common
good word, or distort the bad ones, that it becomes scored as
neutral or lower and get through.

Once correctly marked as SPAM by you, though, the filter
will adjust and not be fooled again. This automation and
ability of the software to grow as you and SPAM change over time
is key to the significance of these types of filters.

Widespread use of good Bayesian filters will not only
eliminate SPAM on your end, but would reduce the practice of
Spamming altogether. If they cannot get the mail through, they
are just wasting their time.

About the Author

Debbie Hamstead is the webmaster of http://www.StompingOutSPAM.com
Offering a comprehensive Quick Start Guide to keeping SPAM out
of your inbox. She also manages http://www.nichesites4profit.com

-
Coping With Spam Filters
by Laurie Rogers Copyright July 2002

If you haven’t yet heard about the chaos that Spam Filters
are currently causing for publishers, then I am about to tell
you EVERYTHING you’ll need to know on this subject. Many
of our fellow publishers disregard the fact that Spam Filters
DO in fact exist. For some reason just do NOT want to face
the fact that, they are DESTROYING their businesses.

I write a column on Spam for DEMC small business ezine, so
I do consider myself to be well educated on this subject. If
you have any questions about what I am about to tell you,
feel free to contact me at: http://www.OptinFrenzy.com

Now let’s begin.

Spam Filters are EVERYWHERE online whether we like it or
not they are. And they are becoming more dominant in all
aspects of the internet, through ISP’s, webhosts and the
chances are, one person in three is using some type of a
filtering device. They are inexpensive to purchase and so
it makes it fairly EASY for the average “Joe” to buy one.

And chances are that your ISP or web host probably uses
them and you are NOT even aware of it. Personally, I do
advise that you contact them to ask them about it and
ask them to REMOVE them from your account immediately.
Now, here is why I suggest that you do this, Spam Filters
are NOT 100% fool proof, in fact they have a tendency to
block out your LEGITIMATE email. Anyone who tells YOU
otherwise is in some serious DENIAL.

I’ve personally taken the time to test almost EVERY Spam
Filtering program that there is currently available online.
And what I saw was absolutely mortifying to say the least.
I ran over 100 different types of emails and newsletters all
through each system and 9 times out of ten, it resulted in
being marked as spam. Needless to say, by the end of the
day I was NOT impressed with my discovery.

Most of these programs are designed to target newsletters
specifically, because they have the words “subscribe” and
“unsubscribe” black marked. Meaning, that any peices of
email that contain those two words are “marked” as being
“SPAM”. This is especially predominant in Spam Killer which
is now owned by McAfee. They also LURE publishers into
what they refer to as being “Spam Traps” (which they do
openly admit -right on their web site), so they can create
more filters DAILY based on ezine/email content. And YES,
I did say DAILY!

Now that I’ve probably scared the wits out of you, here
are a few things that you can do and they will require a
bit of added work on your part.

1.) Make your ezine available in 3 different forms, if it at
all possible. Email it directly to your subscribers, put it on
an autoresponder and make it available online. My good
friend jL Scott (owner of iCop) does this and it covers all
of the bases to ENSURE your readers get your ezine. It’ll
also give you an idea of HOW many people actually read
your ezine.

2.) Ask your readers, IF they have had ANY problems in
receiving your ezine. If they have, start keeping a log of
these instances, if your ezine has been marked as being
spam through their email client ask them for a copy of it
for your records. You MAY want to TRY contacting their
ISP and try talking to them about it, ensure that YOU
maintain your “professionalism” in doing so, as this could
create problems for your subscriber. Advise ALL of your
subscribers to contact their ISP’s and ask them if they
are in fact using filters on their email.

3.) Keep financial loss records that you’ve encountered
because of Spam Filters. And remember everything is of
a monetary value including your ezine.

Although there is no fool proof method of avoiding Spam
Filters, there is currently a pending law suit against the
creators of these programs. So if you do have a case or
have proof that you have been filtered, falsely accused
etc. I recommend that you go and file a report asap at:
http://www.e-crucible.org

Article by Laurie Rogers Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Laurie Rogers is co-author of the Ezine Resource Guide,
http://www.zineadz.com/erg.html She is the owner of Optin
Frenzy - a paid list building program for ezine publishers
http://www.optinfrenzy.com You can obtain more of Laurie’s
articles at: mailto:ezinearticles@optinfrenzy.com

-
If you’re a parent, chances are you’re concerned about the content your kids are being exposed to on television. According to a March 2005 poll by Time Magazine, 66 percent of respondents said there is too much violence on TV, 58 percent said there is too much cursing, and 50 percent said there is too much sexual content. Although that’s the perception of adults, it’s based in fact.



According to the Parents Television Council, profanity is used once every six minutes on network TV shows, once every two minutes on premium cable shows, and once every three minutes in major motion pictures. Alarmingly, according to January 2005 Nielsen statistics, Desperate Housewives is the most popular network television show among children aged 9 to 12. Unless you’re willing to be the TV guardian in your house, how can you be the TV filter that ensures your home remains curse free?



Fortunately, new technology gives you the power to remove the cursing and offensive language that is coming into your home through television and video. There are devices available that can ensure your home has a curse free TV, and that when they watch TV, kids won’t be exposed to the profanity that flies in the face of everything you believe in.



Typically, these TVguardians connect between your TV and VCR, cable, satellite receiver, or DVD. After an easy installation that takes about five minutes, the device automatically detects and filters out about 95 percent of all offensive words and phrases on TV programs and videos, giving you “cursefreeTV.”



With these devices, you no longer have to be the TV guardian in your house. Instead, the device reads the hidden TV signals for closed captions, detects offensive language, momentarily mutes the sound, and displays acceptable words and phrases. In other words, you don’t have to turn off the TV or video so won’t miss a thing.



Some of these models include a feature that allows you to block out offenses to the name of God and Jesus Christ on one setting, while leaving in the name of God when you are watching religious programming.



With a device like this, a generation of TVkids can be protected from foul language, and you can watch a larger selection of programs, without being concerned that profanity will interrupt your enjoyment.



About the author:

Chris Robertson is an author of Majon International, one of the worlds MOST popular internet marketing companies on the web. Visit this Family and Children Website and Majon’s Family and Children directory.

-
The web pages actually at the top of Google have only one thing clearly in common: good writing. Don’t let the usual SEO sacred cows and bugbears, such as PageRank, frames, and JavaScript, distract you from the importance of good content.

I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking web pages on Google are consistently much better written than the vast majority of what one reads on the web. Yet traditional SEO wisdom has little to say about good writing. Does Google, the world’s wealthiest media company, really only display web pages that meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like so many website owners, really get so caught up in the process of the algorithm that it misses the whole point?

Apparently not.
Most Common On-the-Page Website Content Success Factors
Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing a pretty good job of identifying websites with good content and rewarding them with high rankings.

I looked at Google’s top five pages for the five most searched-on keywords, as identified by WordTracker on June 27, 2005. Typically, the top five pages receive an overwhelming majority of the traffic delivered by Google.

The web pages that contained written content (a small but significant portion were image galleries) all shared the following features:

Updating: frequent updating of content, at least once every few weeks, and more often, once a week or more.

Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. No page had more than three misspelled words or four grammatical errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified by using Microsoft Word’s check feature, and then ruling out words marked as misspellings that are either proper names or new words that are simply not in the dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck? I can already hear the scoffing on the other side of this computer screen. Before you dismiss the idea completely, keep in mind that no one really does know what the 100 factors in Google’s algorithm are. But whether the mechanism is SpellCheck or a better shot at link popularity thanks to great credibility, or something else entirely, the results remain the same.

Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few or no long blocks of text.
Lists: both bulleted and numbered, form a large part of the text.

Sentence length: mostly brief (10 words or fewer). Medium-length and long sentences are sprinkled throughout the text rather than clumped together.

Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms related to the keyword, as well as stem variations of the keyword. The page may contain the keyword itself few times or not at all.

SEO “Do’s” and “Don’ts”

A hard look at the results slaughters a number of SEO bugbears and sacred cows.

PageRank. The median PageRank was 4. One page had a PageRank of 0. Of course, this might simply be yet another demonstration that the little PageRank number you get in your browser window is not what Google’s algo is using. But if you’re one of those people who attaches an overriding value to that little number, this is food for thought.

Frames. The top two web pages listed for the most searched-on keyword employ frames. Frames may still be a bad web design idea from a usability standpoint, and they may ruin your search engine rankings if your site’s linking system depends on them. But there are worse ways you could shoot yourself in the foot.

JavaScript-formatted internal links. Most of the websites use JavaScript for their internal page links. Again, that’s not the best web design practice, but there are worse things you could do.
Keyword optimization. Except for two pages, keyword optimization was conspicuous by its absence. In more than half the web pages, the keyword did not appear more than three times, meaning a very low density. Many of the pages did not contain the keyword at all. That may just demonstrate the power of anchor text in inbound links. It also may demonstrate that Google takes a site’s entire content into account when categorizing it and deciding what page to display.

Sub-headings. On most pages, sub-headings were either absent or in the form of images rather than text. That’s a very bad design practice, and particularly cruel to blind users. But again, Google is more forgiving.

Links: Most of the web pages contained ten or more links; many contain over 30, in defiance of the SEO bugbears about “link popularity bleeding.” Moreover, nearly all the pages contained a significant number of non-relevant links. On many pages, non-relevant links outnumbered relevant ones. Of course, it’s not clear what benefit the website owners hope to get from placing irrelevant links on pages. It has been a proven way of lowering conversion rates and losing visitors. But Google doesn’t seem to care if your website makes money.

Originality: a significant number of pages contained content copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was professionally written content apparently distributed on a free-reprint basis. Note: the reprint content did not consist of content feeds. However, no website consisted solely of free-reprint content. There was always at least a significant portion of original content, usually the majority of the page.
Recommendations

Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone who can tell good writing from bad, is creating your site’s content, particularly in the case of a search-engine optimization campaign. If you are an SEO, make sure you get a pro to do the content. A shocking number of SEOs write incredibly badly. I’ve even had clients whose websites got fewer conversions or page views after their SEOs got through with them, even when they got a sharp uptick in unique visitors. Most visitors simply hit the “back” button when confronted with the unpalatable text, so the increased traffic is just wasted bandwidth.

If you write your own content, make sure that it passes through the hands of a skilled copyeditor or writer before going online.

Update your content often. It’s important both to add new pages and update existing pages. If you can’t afford original content, use free-reprint content.

Distribute your content to other websites on a free-reprint basis. This will help your website get links in exchange for the right to publish the content. It will also help spread your message and enhance your visibility. Fears of a “duplicate content penalty” for free-reprint content (as opposed to duplication of content within a single website) are unjustified.

In short, if you have a mature website that is already indexed and getting traffic, you should consider making sure the bulk of your investment in your website is devoted to its content, rather than graphic design, old-school search-engine optimization, or linking campaigns.

About the Author

Joel Walsh is the owner, founder and head-writer of UpMarket Content. To read more about website content best practices, get a consultation with Mr. Walsh, or get a sample page for your site at no charge, go to the SEO website content page: