Tag: essay

When Your Code Doesn’t Self-Alert…

If you don’t want to read this whole post, there’s a big takeaway for anyone who releases code: Please make sure you have an easy way for people to be notified to a new release.

The Story…

I use WordPress a lot. It’s made me lazy on a lot of things, like version control. It’s also made me incredibly complacent when it comes to updates. You see, WordPress has a massive API system and servers which allow you to get in-app alerts to any needed updates. Click to upgrade and done. It’s second only to Chrome, which just updates.

Now there are pros and cons about automated updates, and some things, like my server software? Hellz no, son, I don’t auto-upgrade that! Yes, I auto-upgrade cPanel and other server tools that I added on, but PHP and Apache and MySQL? No, those are things I have to stop and make damned sure I know what I’m doing. Why? Because they’re not ‘add on’ software, they’re the core functionality of my entire webserver, and if I mess them up, I am up shit-creek.

If you’d asked me last year ‘Should WordPress auto update itself like Chrome?’ I would have shouted no, very loudly. And now here I am, doing it. Personally I’ve been using Gary’s Automatic Updater on all my sites for months now, because I know my WordPress setup is tight. I love the Chrome and Firefox auto updates, because I don’t customize those things ever. While I do customize the hell out of WordPress, I do it smart and I do it right. My code is doing_it_right() and the plugins or themes I add on to my sites are all well vetted and Elf Approved. The same can’t be said for everyone, but after a lot of thinking, I think if WordPress auto-updated, people would have an initial clamor of pain with all the shitty code out there that broke, and then the bad code would Darwin itself right on out of use.

But that’s not the point of this. In my head there’s a difference between ‘core software’ like PHP, and ‘app software’ like WordPress. The lines are clear, they should never be crossed. Auto-Updating works for apps, not for core. And what happens when your app doesn’t even auto-alert for updates? How do you handle updates?

I’ve already mastered using git as a ‘deployment’ tool, and svn has been old hat for me. That means I know how to quickly update my code, but I need to know when to do this.

The Solutions…

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. There are some easy ways you can keep track and, conversely to the devs, make it easy to keep people up to date, and it all starts with the code’s website. You do have a website for your code, right?

Check the website

If there’s a blog, there’s probably an RSS feed. This is really easy, since most (if not all) blog and CMS tools use RSS.

No RSS? No blog? Maybe there’s a mailing list. This is actually my favorite option. I hate email, but I love getting emails for software updates like that. If that’s not your thing, see if the mailing list has an RSS feed. I know people use Google Groups for a cheap mailing list, and if you visit the Groups page and click on the about link (see the image, not the dropdown, the link), you get a whole mess of RSS options!

This only works for public groups, but why would a private group be an announcement list for your app releases anyway? If it’s private, get used to email.

Speaking of mailing lists, MailMan, my list of choice, does not have RSS feeds. It’s the old spavined mule of lists, I know, but for people who love it, check out MailMan-to-RSS.(The irony I feel in writing that, which is the opposite of how I handle things with my post2email plugin, is deep and unfathomable.)

But what about those other guys? You know who I mean, the guys who use GitHub as not just a version control tool but their code host? After all, Github Pages are pretty cool, and free, so why not? Time for a practical example.

My amazing friend Mel made a site for Dashicons. They’re like Genericons for your WP Dashboard, and if you’re using MP6, you’re looking at them now. (Mel pointed out to me she did not make all the icons, only some, but the site is hers, so her I pick on.) The site is awesome. It’s fantastic that people can make sites like that, and you can even put a custom domain on it.

But look at it! No feeds!

Thankfully, Github pages are built on Jekyll, and you can set up feeds. But let’s be frank, if it’s not automatically set up for people, they’re not going to do it. And most people don’t do the ‘blog’ part of their Github page sites either. Now what?

Well thankfully, for anything on GitHub, since most people push releases with tags (note to self…), you can use this for rss: https://github.com/user/project/tags.atom — Sadly, I couldn’t find one for branches.

The Real Answer…

Look, at the end of the day, if you’re releasing public code, it’s incumbent upon you to make a way for your users to be able to find out, easily, when you’ve updated. Expecting them to come to your site and check is not going to work. Making an automated way to push your code, your changelog, and your update notices to people, will put it all in one go for you and make it easy. If, like me, you’re afraid people will end up getting too many alerts, make it a blog post and only do it when you know you’re ready.

Making it easier to get alerts for needed upgrades is going to make everything safer, in the long run. Think of all the security patches people are missing, just because we don’t get notified of them!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to sort out how to better use branches and tags.

28 May, 2013
WordPress False Security
Credit: Grafitti Verite
I wrote this months before the botnet attack of April 2013, but I kept putting off posting it. Clearly now is the time! So since people often ask me if I do certain things to protect my site, here’s what I don’t and do do.

What I don’t do

• Hide the WP version in my HTML
• Remove readme.html
• Hide login error messages
• IP blocking*
• Use a different prefix for your DB
• Move wp-config.php*

I don’t bother with the readme or the WP version because it doesn’t matter. People don’t actually search for ‘Who’s using WP 3.4.2? I’ll attack them!’ They let slip their dogs of kiddie cracker war and bury us in traffic. I learned that lesson with the TimThumb debacle. My server got slaughtered by people not searching for TimThumb, but slinging attacks at me as if I had it installed! Even better? They didn’t bother to differentiate where my install where WP was in a subfolder (domain.com/wp/) and just attacked domain.com/wp-content/themes directly. The same thing happened with the recent botnet attacks. Basically people are going to attack me, assuming I’m vulnerable. It’s only when I’ve pissed someone off directly that I’d worry about having a specific version being an issue. And since I keep up to date with upgrades and patches, I don’t worry so much at all.

The error messages thing stems from people worrying that failed logins to WP will tell you that you got the username or password wrong. So if I login as Lpstenu, it’ll say ‘ERROR: Incorrect username.’ That apparently spooks people, thinking that if you know that you’ve gotten a right username, you’ll hammer that. Do me a favor. Go to yourdomain.com/?author=1 and what happens?(This doesn’t work on this domain because I created it back when WP defaulted your first user to ‘admin.’ I made a second ID and deleted that one.) That’s how much effort it takes to find your username, folks. It’s even easier when you look at this post and see the author name, and a link to it, right there in front of you. Your username isn’t a secret. It’s dead easy to get. I’m not wasting time hiding something that easy to find.

That’s not really a valid “security” improvement, anyway. It’s irrelevant whether the attacker knows what he got wrong, as it provides no extra information that would help him to get in. Furthermore, the usernames are exposed in dozens of other places already as I showed you before. I often argue that you can’t remove doors: everyone has to be able to get into a house, so we put locks on our doors as deterrents, and signs up to say we’re watched by ATD or whomever. All of those can be circumvented, and you still have a door. Most crime is prevented by deterrents, however (a sufficiently motivated and skilled person will work around anything), so really all we do is make things inconvenient enough that they go somewhere else.

Part of security is knowing where to spend your time. Make a better mousetrap and you get smarter mice, true, but if you still want to get rid of the mice where do you start? I start with not hiding the obvious. Here’s my username, here’s my login location. They’re standard on most websites, because people have to be able to log in. Now when I really have a locked down site where I want no one but me to log in, I use .htaccess to limit login to just my IPs. This is a (minor) problem when I’m on the road, but I can always SSH in to fix that. Most of the time, though, I trust in my firewall, my server, and the basic security of WP to be enough.

IP blocking is totally useless to me. With a caveat. I use CSF and ModSecurity on my server which will block by IP if you hit very specific abuse parameters, including my newer ModSec rules for protecting logins. However I don’t pay much attention to it, save to whitelist my commonly used IPs. The point of the firewall is not to stop people I know are bad, but to dynamically catch them in the act, block them on the fly, and then let that IP gracefully expire after a certain amount of time. Years ago I may have had to use .htaccess for that, manually updating it to block specific IPs, but software’s come a long way, and letting the right tool do that job is huge. If you only have .htaccess, well, you can use some .htaccess protection of logins, or you can use Perishable Press’s 5G Blacklist. As I tell people frequently, you never know where legit traffic is coming from, don’t be foolhardy.(True story. A customer at work insisted he did too know better, and blocked China and India traffic. Then he went there on vacation and was pissed he couldn’t log in. Yes, I mentioned I had warned him before.)

Curiously controversially, I don’t mess with the DB prefix. I use wp_ much for the same reason I never move my wp-content folder unless I’m using CDN (and even then…) : Poorly written plugins and themes will kill me, and people can view my source code or use DB insertion calls in their code. They don’t have to know my prefix, and in fact, best coding practices are intended to work no matter where the folder is or what you use as a prefix. The other reason is I’m exceptionally lazy, and the less I have to remember that I did ‘differently’ in case of an emergency, the easier my life is. This is important when I’m ever hacked (yes, when), because I can restore faster from scratch if I didn’t go nuts reinventing the wheels or moving things around. Rebuilding a wp-config.php is very easy if I only have to change passwords and user IDs, after all.

Similarly, I don’t move my wp-config.php in most cases. I do on my localhost instance (so I can wipe the folder and DB and start over easily), but really it’s impractical in other situations for me. I think it would be safer to move it out of a web-accessible folder, and when possible I do that (sometimes I have WP in a subfolder) but I have other things I can do to protect that file.

What I Do

Besides a massive amount of work keeping my server up to date and tuning my firewall, I do some things that anyone using WordPress can do:

• .htaccess protect wp-config.php
• Lock file permissions
• Prevent plugins from writing to wp-config.php and .htaccess
• Prevent folder content browsing (for images mostly, but also plugins)
• Use strong passwords for WP/FTP/SQL accounts
• Use one-time passwords for WP/SQL/FTP/SSH accounts

I protect my wp-config.php from direct access with a really simple .htaccess directive:
```
<files wp-config.php>
order allow,deny
deny from all
</files>
```
I think nginx is this:
```
location ~* wp-config.php { 
    deny all; 
}
```
This means you can’t see https://halfelf.org/wp-config.php in your browser. It’s pretty minor, in so far as things go.

I lock down my file permissions as tight as I possibly can. Nothing is set to 777, and my .htaccess isn’t writable. This means if I use a plugin that wants to edit my .htaccess (or wp-config), I have to do it manually. This is good, in my opinion. I always know exactly what I’m doing. In my .htaccess I also have Options -Indexes, which stops people from being able to browse empty folders (this is important for plugins that don’t have an index.php file). Since I’m using SVN and Git, I also prevent people from seeing those:
```
	RewriteRule ^(.*/)?(\.svn|\.git)/ - [F,L]
	ErrorDocument 403 "Access Forbidden"
```
My passwords are stupid complex. I haven’t the foggiest idea what they are thanks to 1Password. I also don’t reuse passwords. This is very important for how my server is setup, as DSO requires you to enter in passwords to upgrade WordPress. While I can use my main account, I actually created an FTP only account for each and every website on my server, and then I hard coded that (and it’s password) into my wp-config file. So yes, I have a DB password (each account is used once for each DB) and an FTP password (again, one account for each account) in my config. And no, I’m not worried about that. Sometimes I have a generic SQL ID for all DBs under one account, though that’s a tiny bit more risky.

But, most importantly, I try to cure myself of being stupid. I don’t log in to my site via non-secure ways (SSH & SFTP only). The passwords I use for my login (which is not SSL protected on WP) are one-account/one-use. I try never to log in on someone else’s computer. I don’t do admin work on potentially unsafe wifi. You see, the greatest security risk in the world isn’t the software you’re using, it’s you. You do stupid things, like recite your credit card info (or password) over your cellphone while on a train trying to get your host to reboot a server. You use Starbucks’s wifi to pay your bills. You talk about how your mother changed her name.

Social engineering is way more dangerous than any server hack, and when it’s down to the wire, that’s what I’m more worried about. After all, I have good backups of my files.
16 April, 2013
Your Photos, Your Way

I’m funding PressGram on Kickstarter and you should too.

I like Open Source. Surprise!

I don’t mind paying for products (as witnessed by the fact that I have paid for this theme, and even the old DevPress and ThemeHybrid ones I don’t use anymore. I have a slew of plugins I paid for, and all in all, I think every dime was money well spent. Paying for open source makes sense.

So there’s this guy I know from the Internet, John Saddington, who likes taking photos, and he likes social media, but he wonders, like I often do, what happens when those outlets go away? Where are all my photos if TwitPic or YFrog vanishes? Or if Facebook deletes my account?

They’re gone.

John loves WordPress. So do I. John loves photos. Well. I fiddle around with them, but the point is he wants to built something that is way more than ‘just’ a plugin. He wants to make a free iPhone app… look, this is what he wants:

The premise is simple: I wanted to post filtered photos from my iPhone 5 but without worrying about any privacy or licensing issues (and we’re not interested in asking you to upload photo IDs). In other words, I wanted complete and total creative control of my images and content (as well as the pageviews).

And this will post to WordPress, which is so simple, we have a one-click installer at DreamHost for you to use to make it. Imagine that. You could have a photoblog with a couple clicks.

When I read that John was making PressGram, I had to poke at it, even though it’s not Open Source. It’s an Apple iOS app. I’m not shocked that it’s not open source, and after consideration, I don’t mind. It doesn’t have to be. As long as the plugin is open source (and frankly, given WordPress’s API, I can easily envision how it would be without stepping on closed source apps), it’s good to go.

John knows his shit. He shares the same concerns and doubts about social media as I do, he rails on Facebook for the same things I do. He’s a guy whose ethics I can get behind. And he’s a guy whose code I can get behind. Remember I review plugins. I’ve seen his code. It’s good.

So yeah, I’m supporting him so you can have a free app. Go figure. And as with most of the things I kickstart, I get no swag back (I think I get a kudos and a link somewhere), because I like to give for the spirit of giving most of the time. I’ll be getting the Veronica Mars DVD, but I’d be buying that anyway.

Give in. You know you want this. Pay $5 instead of risking your content belonging to someone else.

6 April, 2013
I Don’t Understand CloudFlare

If you know the answer to all this, I’d love to hear it, because I can’t figure this out. What’s the real point of CloudFlare?

Fairly recently I was reading Tony Perez’s post about CloudFlare vs Incapsula vs ModSecurity. As regular readers may know, I am frenemies with Mod_Security. I often want to kill it with fire, but I never disable it entirely because it protects my site from hackers. By using Mod_Security I limit my chances of having Bobby Tables kill my site.

Using Mod_Security gives you some protection from simple SQL injections, but also XSS attacks. You can integrate it with things like Project Honeypot. As they put it:

ModSecurity™ is an open source, free web application firewall (WAF) Apache module. With over 70% of all attacks now carried out over the web application level, organizations need all the help they can get in making their systems secure. WAFs are deployed to establish an external security layer that increases security, detects and prevents attacks before they reach web applications. It provides protection from a range of attacks against web applications and allows for HTTP traffic monitoring and real-time analysis with little or no changes to existing infrastructure.

And you know what? It really does all that.

So what’s CloudFlare? It’s an intermediary between your site and the world which caches your site, compresses data, and gives people the fastest version of your site. In the event your site is down, they’ll serve cached versions. They even give you a pretty picture.

The first time I heard about this, I arched my eyebrows in surprise and confusion. I’m going to make my site faster by putting more layers between the reader and my content? That means instead of just relying on my server and host to be fast, serve compressed pages, keep the lights on, keep a speedy connection to the Intertubes, and do all the things that needs to happen for the magic pipe between my website and you guys, I’m doing all that and trusting someone new to help me do it better. Interesting, Captain. How are they doing this?

CloudFlare has a few tricks to do this: CDN (content loads faster if it’s stored local to the people visiting the site), content optimization (minimizes and compresses page content), security (protecting you from DDOS and SQL injection), and analytics.

Except when I look at that list I think that I already use mod_pagespeed to minimize and compress my content, mod_security to protect me (also Config Server Firewall for the DDoS stuff), and analytics is done by my server or Google. For me, that means the only thing they’re offering that I don’t have is a CDN. I read up on CloudFlare’s CDN, and they tout not having the weight of 15 years legacy crap. That’s a tricky edge to dance on, since they also don’t have the experience of those 15 years, or the network. In fact, looking at their network map, they have nothing in South America. Guess what the number two location is for people visting my sites? Brazil.

And this, my children, is why you study your stats to understand who is visiting your site, where from, why, and with what browsers. Right away I can see that CloudFlare, while interesting, doesn’t seem to have any benefit for me. If I decide that I want a CDN, it’ll probably cost me around $30 more a month, minimum, for my sites and what they have on them today. Oh but wait, you say, CloudFlare is free?

Yeaaaah. I don’t trust free services very much. A free app, once I download it and put it on my server, I keep. A free service is hosted on someone else’s server, at their whimsy, and is supported as they see fit. Yes, this means I don’t trust Facebook or Twitter. A free service is interesting only in that it lets me try it before I buy it, and for that, I approve of how CloudFlare does it. But the problem is today I went to a website and saw this:

What did I do? I didn’t visit this website. They can brag about the whole 30ms response time all they want, but if I went to a website and hit a barrier like that, I stop because it’s getting in the way of my surfing. That was my initial quandary about CloudFlare after all. How can it provide all these awesome things without getting in the way? And it can’t for everyone. At first I thought it was because I was going through bit.ly and it worried I was a spammer (okay, fair enough), so I tried manually, and it was the same problem. I just went to the page normally now, and it’s been well more than “5 seconds” and the site still hasn’t loaded.

I fundamentally dislike anything that causes my users to do ‘more’ to get to my content. I think that it’s more harmful than a slow site, and it’s more harmful than letting these bad eggs visit my site. The right place to block a naughty person is when they’re doing something naughty. If my IP is a range of DDoS attackers, that’s one thing. You shouldn’t be detecting as the page loads, delaying me almost 30 seconds, and then loading the page. This delay is supposedly for my protection (me the site runner, not the visitor). Okay then, what are they protecting me from?

Part of CloudFlare’s service is something called a Web Application Firewall (WAF), which is fancy-speak for saying their computer looks at what people are coming to your site to do, what data they’re sending, and tries to figure out if they’re nice visitors (which it should let through) or naughty hackers (which it should block).(From WP Shine Cloudflare: Early Reports Question Effectiveness as Website Security Tool)

WAF came up before, with Mod_security. And at this moment, I go to a picture. Here’s what Tony parsed from the data:

He asked on Google+ what we took from that article, and my reply was “That the months I spent mastering mod_security was totally worth it.” If you don’t trust Tony’s numbers, you can read the full report on slideshare for yourself. Tony has the same feelings about Captcha as I do, by the way, though less strongly. I despise it more than I hate hotlinkers, and I hate hotlinking. Captchas are the worst barrier between content and consumer that was ever invented. They don’t work, they’re not accessibility friendly, and they are rarely implemented well. Hotlinking may be theft, but Captchas are shouting “No soup for you!”

Which brings me to my point.

What is CloudFlare doing? In plain english, can someone explain to me how it would benefit me? Ignoring the CDN aspect, the only WAF part I can see benefiting me is that CloudFlare (and Incapsula for that matter) essentially crowdsource the list of people who are ‘bad’ and shouldn’t access my site. Which is cool, and that I certainly like. It’s sort of like a Project Honeypot for baddies (and by the way, that would be a nice feature). Having the world bring in the list of bad people, as well as their patterns, and sharing that back out is a great way to keep everyone up to date quickly and seamlessly.

I really just can’t see why I’d ever want to use CloudFlare. It would certainly be a cheap and easy way to put some possible gain on my site, but in the long run I feel that managing these things myself (or hiring someone to do it) would be a better business solution. It saves me from the dread blackbox spam killer, which means I always know what’s going on. Now I know not everyone is capable of handling all this themselves, but from what I’ve seen, most webhosts already have mod_security running. So lets drop the WAF argument from the table, and we come down to the best thing CloudFlare’s doing is acting as a CDN and compressing content. That’s not good enough for me. At that point, you may as well use Google’s PageSpeed Service

I’m sure there are great reasons for using CloudFlare, but I just can’t see it.

Quick ETA… Talking to a coworker, it occurred to us that I may just not be their audience. I’m too big already and I took care of most of what they do. I can look at this and think “If I just have a small site and I want to speed it up on a shared server where I have no root nothings” then it looks way more reasonable. But I’m not.

20 March, 2013
Let Your Content Be Copied

Recently I undertook a personal project to convert a website from Flash to WordPress. I didn’t do this for any reason other than I wanted to do something nice for someone who has, in a very strange way, been the reason I am who I am within WordPress. She’s an artist, which means her website was very media heavy, and back in the early 2000s, the way to do this was Flash.

I hated it.

Oh I loved how it looked, but really that was it. It made her content slow, and it made it impossible for me to say “Hey, check out the new content!” without also saying “To get there, click on Sputnik, then on the fourth star, then the fifth box…” It’s just really bad UI, and no matter how pretty it is, the barrier between reader and content was nigh insurmountable. Also it doesn’t work on iOS these days.

My father, similarly, had his old site as all PDFs, so when I redid his site for his birthday (which he loves, and yes, WordPress), I copied his PDFs to text, with a lot of LATex in there for the math, and he complained. “People will steal my content.” I pointed out they could do that anyway. In fact, I had, in essence, done what they would, downloading the PDF and copying out the text and images. He grumbled, but as soon as his peers remarked that they could finally read his work, he calmed down.

I understand the fear of theft. You want to show you work to draw people in and then sell yourself. My father is a consultant and speaker, and his fear is that people will take his work and plagiarize him, or worse, make it seem like he endorsed them. If you think libel is a rough road on the Internet, try the endorsement shenanigans. Some people will do anything to make themselves seem more appealing.

At the same time, I agree with Cory Doctorow that giving your books away isn’t bad. The reason my ebooks are pay what you will is that I want people to find me, and find value in me. You can argue I wouldn’t have my job if I didn’t do that. My ebook profits paid for a brake repair and help keep my webhosting fees under control, but I sure don’t make a living off two ebooks. But again, the point is not that the website, directly, makes me money, but that it allows me to make money.

It seems counterintuitive. How can I make money giving things away? A website is like advertising. You don’t make money directly on an ad. You pay around $3.5 million dollars to have an ad in the Super Bowl not because you think someone will drop what they’re doing, run out and buy Doritos, but because you are trying to make an impact. The best Super Bowl ads, the best ads in general, are the ones we watch and want to share with our friends. We talk about them, and when we’re at the store and spot Doritos, we have a positive association with them, and are inclined to buy them. Sneaky ain’t it?

The website is the same thing. You read a lot about WordPress here, so at a certain point you start to associate ‘Ipstenu’ and ‘Half-Elf’ with WordPress. You see me on the forums, posting and helping people, and you get positive reinforcement of that association. Then you see I have an ebook about Multisite and you buy it. So why are the ebooks also pay what you want? Because people come to these things the other way, too. They find the ebooks, wonder about my qualifications and merits, and later come back and pay. And yes, I’ve gotten money that way too. After a while, when you build up your cred, you don’t have to mess with that and you can just sell, but at the time of my ebooks, I wasn’t someone who could say “My job is WordPress” so I couldn’t afford to just sell. I probably could today.

By why keep giving things away? WordPress (the code) is free, and my content is technically free here. You’re not paying me to read this, after all. It goes back to positive associations. If you get a good association with something, you keep using it. Newspapers, back in the day, were the only way to get news. You paid for two things: the information and the reliability. The radio came and changed the game, letting you listen to news, but the papers stuck around because unlike TV and radio news, you didn’t have to wait for your segment to come up, you could flip the pages and read sports.

The value of straight news didn’t really change until the Internet, where we started offering you the information at no immediate cost. Most of the time, the Internet sites can’t compete with reliability, but people became increasingly annoyed with having to pay for content. Buying the paper, sure, but I’m already paying for the Internet (access to it). Shouldn’t that be funneling back like TV fees do? Alas, they don’t, which means news media goes through hoops and ladders to try to lock their content down so you can’t copy it, or you have to pay to get at it. In return people like me find ways around paying to read content.

It’s not that we don’t think we should pay for things. I do pay for books, music, movies, media, news, etc, and I encourage people to do so. It’s not the money at all, it’s the barrier between me and the content. There’s obvious value in reading the news, but the value is diminished by proliferation and frankly by their own quality. It’s true that if you build it they will come, but without letting people share what they found, then you won’t get more readers.

That’s why the walls between your reader and your content need to go. That’s why you need to allow a direct link to your content, so I can say “Hey, I read this awesome article, go here!” You want me to tweet, text, link, post, tumble, and share your content so you get more readers, and more to the point, you get happy readers. The happier your readers, the more they feel like they should share. They’re getting a psychological kick-back from sharing, and we’re back to the positive association reinforcement we want.

I’m certainly not going to say that giving away all your content is going to make you money, but I will say that giving away some of your content will do so. There’s no magic formula to say where the breakpoint is for your product, but there’s no way to do that for anything. You have to determine where you’re going to make your money. My father makes money with his work and lectures. By posting smaller excerpts of his essays and papers online for free, people can find value in his work and hire him. An artist can post lower resolution/quality versions of their art for free, and let the reason find merit in the product. A writer can put disparate thoughts that don’t really combine themselves well into one work up on their blog, and let people see the value in their books. And by letting people copy your content, by letting them quote in part on in whole, you make them happy.

Do I worry about plagiarism and content theft? Funny thing, no. By having my SEO ranking high, based on Google and all being able to read my content, if someone searches for phrases found in my articles, they’ll find my site before the sploggers and thieves. By making it easier for people to link to me, I increase my SEO. The same goes for my quality of content. I make it high, people will link to me, and we get a happy circle of reciprocity. I never fear content theft, and because of that, I let my content be copied.

It’s served me well.

11 February, 2013
Hotlinking is Evil (And So Is Google)
We all know hotlinking is a bad thing. Hotlinking uses up someone else’s bandwidth, which costs them money. It takes away from any profit they might make on ads, because you’re not going to their site. It removes their credit from images. So why did Google decide to hotlink when they made their faster image search?

This is what the new image search looks like:

I’ll admit, that looks pretty nifty. It’s a fast way to see images. But it’s also a fast way to lose attribution. Here’s what just the new image box looks like.

This image now loads ‘seemingly’ locally. It’s totally a part of Google, though, there’s no reference back to how the site looks (it used to be an overlay). In fact, most people will just see the image, copy if they want, and move on to the next site. No one has any reason to dig deeper and to visit the image’s page.

By contrast, the thumbnail images you see on Google, if you viewed source, look like this: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPNtMLkk8rwj3lLv6a2kEQ8_eo6BuiUZYn3N5z3cbMu6rVPo3Xkw If you go to gstatic.com though, all you get is a 404 error page, but it’s pretty easy to find out this is where Google saves all their static content. Including images. These thumbnails are in moderate to low quality, and if that was all Google did, show small, iffy, thumbnails and redirect people to the real site, that would be great. Instead, now they actively hotlink from you. Oh yes, that full image you saw in my screenshot was directly linked to the owner’s media file.

The first thing I did after noticing this was to add the following to my robots.txt:
```
User-agent: Googlebot-Image
Disallow: /
```
Those directions are right from Google, who doesn’t even pitch you any reason to why you wouldn’t want to do this. Normally they’ll tell you ‘You can, we’d rather you didn’t because of XYZ, but here it is anyway.’ This time, it’s a straight up ‘Here’s how.’ I find that rather telling.

Naturally I went on to read why Google thought this was a good idea

The following points are all reasons Google thinks this is better.

We now display detailed information about the image (the metadata) right underneath the image in the search results, instead of redirecting users to a separate landing page.

The first part about this, the detailed information, is great. Having the meta-data right there without redirecting to the separate page like the used to, with the data on the side that no one read, is an improvement. Thank you for that.

We’re featuring some key information much more prominently next to the image: the title of the page hosting the image, the domain name it comes from, and the image size.

Again, this is great. I think that the data should be more visible than it is, especially the ‘This image may be copyright protected’ stuff. Considering Google won’t allow you to use ads if you use copyright protected material (which they claim I do here, by the way), they really have a higher measure of standard to live up to when it comes to informing people of the stick by which they are measured.

The domain name is now clickable, and we also added a new button to visit the page the image is hosted on. This means that there are now four clickable targets to the source page instead of just two. In our tests, we’ve seen a net increase in the average click-through rate to the hosting website.

I can see this being true. Again, the links should be more obvious, and really they should link not to the image directly, but the contextual page in all cases. Traffic is important, and if you send people to the image page where they don’t see the ads, you’re causing them to lose money. So the idea behind this part is really nice, and I’m for it, it just needs some kick-back improvements. Google should give people a good reason to go to the parent site. And this next item is where they fail…

The source page will no longer load up in an iframe in the background of the image detail view. This speeds up the experience for users, reduces the load on the source website’s servers, and improves the accuracy of webmaster metrics such as pageviews. As usual, image search query data is available in Top Search Queries in Webmaster Tools.

And now we hit the problem. While this is true (it will be both faster and use less of my bandwidth while decreasing load), it’s still showing my image off my servers! Worse? It’s got the full sized image from my server, which means if I have a 4 meg photo (and I do), they’ll be pulling all 4 megs down, and the reader can just right-click and save. They never need to touch my site.

As Bill and Ted would say, Bogus.

Go back to how Google shows thumbnails. They have their own, lower-rez version. I regularly post other people’s images on a site, and when I do, I purposefully keep a lower resolution version on my site, and link to them for the best. Why? Because it’s their image. They did the work, they made it, I should honor them and respect them, and be a good net-denizen. Google’s failing on that.

For me their search has always been a little questionable for images. Now it’s outright evil.
1 February, 2013