Dumb question. The most recent genuine spam comment in the WCI spam filter is dated 17th February. The second most recent is dated 4th February, and the third is dated 28th January. There are 30 spam comments dated 28th January, and 62 dated 27th January. And roughly the same number each and every day before that. (The spam filter still catches a few real comments by mistake, which I fish out, and I'm not counting them. I can't remember when the last spam comment got missed by the filter.)
The quantity of spam seems to have dropped off a cliff around noon 28th January 2014. Does anybody know why? Is it the same at other blogs, Typepad or not? No real reason for asking; I'm just curious about this good news.
Update: and the two most recent spam comments, that came in after the cliff, are not like the others. They look like adverts for sophisticated financial services, rather than the usual adverts for more, err, consumer-oriented products.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Oh no – now you’ve jinxed it!
Who knows. Perhaps its being collected by the Five Eyes Network.
Yep, that’s why I waited so long before asking my question. I was waiting for someone else to ask it, so they could take the hit from the jinx. But nobody else said anything. It can’t just be WCI, can it? The Five Eyes Network must have a strong interest in certain products, and in making sure nobody else gets the benefits of those products!
Cue plenty of users with randomly generated names advertising processed meats…
[Hah! This got classified as spam. SG]
Take a look at which websites are driving your blog’s hit count. You’ll find a number of them (possibly a majority of them?) are simply links to advertisements.
The spammers are now targeting blog authors rather than blog readers in the same sense that live music venues used to make their money from club patrons, but eventually figured out that they can make more money from the performers (pay-to-play). If the trend continues, it indicates the end of blogging as a popular medium.
The End of Blogging…sounds like a great title for a blog post.
Ryan: I’m not sure I understand that explanation, but even if it were right, that wouldn’t explain why spam suddenly fell off a cliff, in the space of a few hours, would it? Wouldn’t it suggest a slow decline?
Oops, sorry Nick. I glossed over the part where you outlined the time frame, and didn’t fully absorb it. I stand corrected. I’m projecting my observations from my own blog onto yours. I should have just read you a little more carefully.
I am guessing your blogging platform improved its spam filters so you aren’t seeing them. Check with them if they tightened up.
I’ve got a lot less spam emails since the new year and was puzzled by that.
It looks like Typepad will no longer allow posting without an account or connection through another account.
Lord: Aha! Maybe that’s it.
I haven’t had a problem posting with just name & e-mail, but I’ve also used this combination on Typepad before.
This change was made by Typepad about then:
http://everything.typepad.com/blog/2014/01/a-new-tool-in-the-fight-against-spammers.html
Redwood: Aha! Now I think that’s it!
Re: http://everything.typepad.com/blog/2014/01/a-new-tool-in-the-fight-against-spammers.html
I think a comment I sent on Jan 29th where I explained why IT failed in 2008, and how CBs could avoid all recession in the future , and how I worked this all by reading Nick’s blog must have been nabbed by the spam filter (I don’t think I had JavaScript turned on).
Wished I’d kept a copy now.
According to an article in Boing Boing last December, Google is threatening sites that use comment spam for search engine optimization.
Comment-spammers threaten to sabotage their victims through Google Disavow if the evidence of their vandalism isn’t removed – http://boingboing.net/2014/03/05/comment-spammers-threaten-to-s.html
[Ironically, I just rescued this comment from spam. Thanks Ruth. NR]
It may not be correctly determining javascript under Chrome. This should check.
Experiment
http://ji.revolvermaps.com/2/2.js?i=8g9q09cnmki&m=0&s=130&c=ff0000&t=1