It is a link checker designed to look for broken links in or from your site, so basically you point it at a site and it checks all links it finds - both internally and externally. It is the external function that brought up this giant list.

It is a remarkable little tool and very useful. I'd never heard of it before - so a 'hats off to highman'.

Curiously, they haven't for my origional example (me) yet.

However, to make the folks at clixplus feel better, I sent the add URL page to Google immediately I found it. They have already seen it and have confirmed they will '..deal appropriately..' with them

[This message has been edited by MakeMeTop (edited 05-30-2001).]

I think their BAD day has just begun, all links coming down...

[This message has been edited by JuniorHarris (edited 09-06-2001).]

Forwarded by: Sheli Cryderman

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting NameSecure. NameSecure is listed as the registrar (guardian of the domain name) and tech contact (supplying the redirection to the web pages). However, NameSecure does not provide or have any involvement with the web pages or web page contents.

The concerned party would be the Registrant or owner of the domain name.

Thank you

NameSecure
----------------

Hmph. Looks like they prefer to just wash their hands when faced with these types of issues and basically ignore problems that could ruin their good name. Greed will get them in the end -- their name in my mind is now forever linked to pagejackers. I guess most companies don't realize that bad PR can kill you. Just compare Tylenol and that Orange Juice company's handling of their bad situations to Ford/Firestone (we're not responsible it's the other guy!) and you quickly see that taking responsibility (even if you don't have to) makes good business sense. Oh, well, sorry to clutter up the list with a PR rant -- comes from 4 years of advertising/pr in college and two years of working as a PR flack!

One of the principal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") is a limitation on the potential money damages that Online Service Providers ("OSPs"), including libraries and educational institutions, could face when they function like a common carrier, allowing online users access to copyrighted material placed there by someone else. Rather than confront huge financial claims if the third party material infringes someone's copyright, OSPs can escape liability provided they comply with these new rules. Since the statute takes effect immediately, it is urgent that all institutions act promptly to ensure that their systems are in compliance with the terms. Note that the limitation does not apply to copyrighted material the OSP may place online itself, such as on its home page. Standard copyright rules, including proper clearance and fair use, apply to that material

... lots of initial explaination ...

When dealing with copyrighted material available through its network, an OSP must be passive. It cannot place material online, modify content, store it longer than necessary or know that it infringes someone else's copyright.

... lots of initial explaination ...

The statute requires that in order for an OSP to qualify, it must implement several novel requirements immediately

osp = Online Service Provider

Comply with "take down" and "put back" notice requirements

... lots more words ...

The new limitation greatly reduces an OSP's exposure to monetary damages. However, it does not exempt an OSP from legal action or injunctive relief. Nevertheless, it will serve as a first line of defense against a claim of copyright infringement and is in addition to other copyright defenses and limitations, like fair use. Be forewarned: the rules are complex and require strict adherence to rigorous deadlines. Unless fully complied with, an OSP, even a non-profit institution, faces loss of the exemption and exposure to potentially large copyright damage claims.

Mute point now looks like the pages only contain a javascript redirect so they are down.

[This message has been edited by wasmith AKA crazylogic (edited 05-30-2001).]

Registrar: NameSecure.com
Domain: CLIXPLUS.COM
Created on 03-28-2000
Expires on 03-28-2002

Administrative Contact:
CHRIS ROBINSON
Phone: 852-25245188
E-mail: chris@clixplus.com

Technical Contact:
NameSecure
Phone: 800-299-1288
E-mail: support@namesecure.com

Name Servers:
NS1.CLIXPLUS.NET 202.66.160.83
NS1.WEBHOSTHK.COM 203.135.128.1
NS2.WEBHOSTHK.COM 203.135.128.2

Telling a registrar some website has stolen information on it is like calling the Navy when you see a car jacking instead of calling the police. Sure, they don't like that it happened, but what do you expect them to do about it?

They copy code from a popular site and place the code on their site. Then they submit their site with the stolen code to search engines. When someone clicks on the link at an engine, they are redirected to the pagejackers own home page not the stolen page.

Is that right?

As an ongoing safety measure, how would you systematically look for sites doing this to your site? Would you do link popularity checks on a regular basis to see who is linking to you?

Nice work guys You people impress me sometimes

*takes out notepad*

Thanks for letting us know about these creeps MakeMeTop - amazing what we can achieve when we all put our heads together. More power to the forums!

Hats off to Google as well for reacting so quickly.

Perhaps clixplus are now rethinking their SEO strategy

[This message has been edited by MakeMeTop (edited 06-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by JuniorHarris (edited 09-06-2001).]

Not as bad - but see if you can find your trademark, company name or text from your site in these peoples' attempt at spam! Here is the e-mail I wrote to them which has been completely ignored!

"..Doing my usual weekly check on search engines, I discovered a number of your gateway site pages which have included text from my web site incorporating our Registered TradeMark No. 2236674 'xxxx' which has been done without my knowledge or permission. This means that your gateway sites will come up on certain search engines when my trademark is typed in which then routes the surfer to your main site without any clear or visible means of visiting the my site. This appears to be a clear attempt to mislead surfers and pass off your site as me!

[I've removed these links as I believe it would be unfair to continue to list them after the unreserved apology I have received and the actions they have promised to take immediately - see below]

....Although your attempt to manipulate search engine results is not a blatant theft of entire pages....I certainly object very strongly to you using my TradeMark within your clear attempts to spam the search engines.

Without wishing to comment on ... your doorway pages (which would obviously lead to your site being banned if reported), I would like to hear your comments on this matter... and what steps will be taken to stop this misuse of my TradeMark immediately...."

Look at the pages and then view source and look at the noframes tag. They have appeared to have found the top 20 or so sites that appear in the UK for SEO, taken the pages, done a random phrase pick and put them back into pages.

I don't know about everyone else, but this sort of activity by so-called professional SEO companies is really starting to 'p...' me off!

[This message has been edited by MakeMeTop (edited 06-05-2001).]