“Your account is consuming about 10.66% of CPU resources on a shared server, which is not a fair share,” the message said.

“We had no choice but to block the web access of following script to stabilize the server. Because resources are shared, I’m sure you can understand that we need to take action if one site is causing downtime for dozens of other sites.”

I actually don’t fully understand why the site was suspended without warning, but that’s another issue. Being at the cricket I had no way of taking immediate remedial action anyhow.

According to Google Analytics, this site receives about 300 visitors per day, which by itself should not consume excessive server resources.

However, it’s always good to keep the house tidy so I was happy to review and implement several measures.

1) Once at home I installed WP Super Cache. This plugin generates static html files from a dynamic WordPress blog. After a html file is generated, the web server will serve that file instead of processing the comparatively heavier and more expensive WordPress PHP scripts.

As it currently stands, about 24 hours after my site was restored, the cache holds 9.89MB with 13 pages and 124 expired pages.

2) I also installed the WP Smush.it plugin and smushed all my images.

Smush.it uses optimization techniques specific to image format to remove unnecessary bytes from image files. It is a “lossless” tool, which means it optimizes the images without changing their look or visual quality.

It took about an hour to bulk process all my pictures, and I noticed that most were being reduced in size by around 30 percent.

3) I deleted post revisions from the database and optimized the database.

4) I removed the Daily Stats plugin, which may or may not have been adding to server load. It certainly had a hefty database table of 2MB, which I deleted.

5) I removed several inactive plugins.

Bad Behavior plugin

6) Late yesterday I installed the Bad Behavior plugin. I had used this plugin previously, but encountered some problems with it. So far, it’s working okay this time.

Bad Behavior works by screening all requests to block email harvesters and malicious robots.

Bad Behavior analyses the HTTP headers, IP address and other metadata regarding the request to determine if it is spammy or malicious.

In just under 24 hours, Bad Behavior has blocked 839 attempted visits. That seems an extraordinary number and is probably why the system resources are being strained. An example of the log is pictured below.

According to the FAQ: “By preventing spambots and other malicious bots from ever accessing any of your pages, your bandwidth usage and server load will drop significantly. How much depends on how many malicious bots visit your site regularly. It can also help prevent a denial of service where your Web host shuts off your account because spambots were using up all the available resources.”

That’s what I want to achieve, of course, a reduction in use of system resources.

Site5 emailed me again this morning to say there has been an improvement in that regard, down to 6.81 percent, but more needs to be done.

I’m hoping that if Bad Behavior does its job, there will be a more significant reduction in the next couple of days.

If anyone has encountered any difficulty using this site, please let me know.

I’ve searched my inbox and can’t see any record of correspondence advising me of this. I had been an mBox customer since February 2004.

I received a fax from mBox on July 8. The next one on July 23 came from eFax.

Apart from the lack of notice, I was not given login details for eFax and had to request these using a “lost password” option.

As far as I can tell, eFax doesn’t provide a voicemail service, but they appear to have retained it in my case, albeit with an American accent and no option for me to personalise the message.

The monthly price with eFax is also dearer than it was with mBox. I’m yet to discover if they will honor the former pricing.

I don’t really have a problem with the service being transferred to another provider. Some communication would have been nice though.

There is nothing on the web to explain what happened. It must have been pretty sudden because mBox is still running Google ads.

Frankly, I no longer need a fax number, and if voicemail isn’t part of the package I will probably drop the account when it comes up for renewal.

Well, they can actually be quite handy for editing pictures grabbed from the web.

I’ve been using Pixlr for just that purpose lately and I’ve been most impressed.

Pixlr is a flash-based editor with all the tools necessary for manipulating web images. Pictures can be cropped and resized, touched up with a brush, adjusted for color, curves, hue and saturation, etc.

It’s fast and easy to use.

There are extensions for Firefox and Chrome that make capturing a screenshot, cropping and resizing it a breeze.

A company called Fraxion Payments has now made it possible for bloggers to charge as little as one cent per article.

“Creators of quality content can now charge for their work,” says Chris Wilkins, co-founder of Fraxion Payments.

“Those who create the content will get the lions’ share of the revenue. This is the way it should be.”

The company says bloggers will be paid up to 85 percent on a monthly basis for purchased articles, “which may well be a huge boost for citizen journalism”.

The payment is actually 60 percent for total royalties of less than US$100 per month.

Readers need to register for both a Fraxion account and the blog they wish to pay for content. I find that a little clumsy and it could deter some casual visitors who otherwise wouldn’t mind parting with 10 cents to read a story. The Fraxion people say they are working on an update where people won’t have to login, but “don’t ask when it will be ready”.

My “Fraxion Payments Account Registration” email went to the spam box in Gmail too, but I guess that can happen with any automated message.

Once registered, readers need to purchase Fraxions, which are about one US cent each.

The system looks easy enough to use from a blogger’s perspective, with payments made through PayPal when US$200 is accrued.

I can’t imagine readers paying for content on a personal blog like this one, but niche sites and citizen journalist sites may succeed in attracting payments.

It’s an innovative concept and one that I suspect will grow in usage.

The Advertiser revealed today that a new law came into force on January 6, requiring internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month’s state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll.

No such rules apply to commenting on federal elections.

The Right to Know Coalition, made up of major media outlets, has described the new laws as “draconian”.

Attorney General Michael Atkinson was quoted in the Adelaide Now report saying: “There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

As a newspaper and website editor I consider the new law to be a disturbing development.

It will inevitably lead to a proliferation of anonymously published offshore websites that have no moderation policies at all.

It will not prevent comment on South Australian politics, but it will restrict South Australian media in publishing comments.

It appears that SA newspaper websites have been deliberately singled out to verify the identity of all commenters, which will limit the number of comments and the flow of debate, also making it difficult for some people to comment at all.

Ironically, the ABC may not be covered by the same law, because Mr Atkinson concedes it does not meet the definition of an “electronic journal” and falls under federal legislation.

This creates the ridiculous situation where a handful of newspaper websites, including The Border Watch, will face more stringent regulations than other media.

Talkback radio will presumably continue to be exempt from identification requirements. Mr Atkinson, please explain the difference.

Sadly, young people will find it almost impossible to get a comment published on a newspaper website.

Most likely, we’ll have to use the electoral roll and phone book for verification.

Disappointingly, the opposition Liberal Party supported the legislation when it passed through parliament last year.

• Graphic from The Inquisitr
• Update: The Attorney General has backed down and said he will repeal the law retrospectively if Labor wins government.

According to Microsoft adCentre Labs, 63 percent of you were male.

Nearly 86 percent of you came from Australia, and according to Alexa, this is the 4272nd most popular website in Australia.

The article viewed the most times (11,364 times) was my brief item on y7 mail. I don’t even use y7 mail any more, having switched to mgorey @ ymail.com instead.

In other stats recorded by Google Analytics:

• 65% of visitors used Internet Explorer and 25% Firefox.
• 91% of visits came from Windows computers, 7% Macintosh and 1.5% Linux. Figures to watch next year: 332 visitors came from iPhones, 32 from Playstation and 22 from Android phones.
• Of the Windows visitors, 68% used XP and 29% Vista. Eight visitors used Windows ME and 151 (0.13%) came from Windows 98 computers.
• Countries: Australia 97,441; United States 11,062; United Kingdom 4600; Canada 2193; New Zealand 1785. The only non-English speaking countries in the top 10 were Germany (554 visitors) and the Netherlands (451).

I oppose Australian Government plans to compulsorily filter the web.

GetUp! has gathered more than 120,000 petition signatures so far in opposition to mandatory internet censorship.

There are plenty of alternatives, like distributing software to parents to use at home, or making the filter opt-in rather than mandatory.

And of course, prosecute people who download and use inappropriate material such as child pornography and bomb manufacture.

But don’t enshrine the nanny state and take away our freedom to choose.

An unsolicited email on November 13 said my site had been discovered during a search “for high quality blogs and gifted web writers”.

The writer referred to a specific post.

“Michael, you definitely have a unique and interesting writing style and an intriguing high quality blog. Since you and your blog meet our quality guidelines, we would like to offer you to join our unique and highly rewarding program,” the email said.

Flattery gets you everywhere.

The first email went on to say:

“The program links our customers with gifted writers like you and pays them for writing short articles. You already do that, so I’m sure you will be happy to be rewarded for your talent. Our program pays at least 15 USD for each article you write, with options for additional payments. We do not ask nor expect you to write ads; rather, we give you complete writing freedom and appreciate your creativity and imagination.”

I replied: “I may be interested on a case-by-case basis depending on the product or service, providing they are independent reviews.”

The organisation’s response included:

The principles of the program are very simple:

• Our sponsors propose a subject related to their business or cause and some resources (web page, image, video) linked to it.
• You write a short post or an article about the proposed subject (300-500 words), including the web resources. You are not expected and must not write ads.
• You review articles written by other writers like you.
• With each article you write or review, you accumulate money toward a monthly payment.

And the pointy bit:

“Our sponsors come from a variety of industries and segments, including health (hospitals, biomedical), finance (forex, insurance), gaming (bingo, casino), travel (flights, package tours), retail (books, CDs, groceries), and charity (child care, medical care). All of them are highly reputable and industry leaders, emphasizing customer care and social responsibility.”

“You will need to write regular articles and review articles written by others. Each regular article that you write increases you balance by 20 USD, while each review increases your balance by 3 USD. You will get paid monthly by a money transfer to an eWallet such as PayPal or MoneyBookers.”

Here are the full terms and conditions.

I won’t be participating.

I don’t think this is a scam. In fact I’m sure it’s a well-conceived idea to get established bloggers to write about products and services, linking to the providers.

The guarantee of independence preserves a facade of integrity, but that’s all it is. Basically, they are brokers to sell links. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not for me.

I don’t mind writing reviews for payment, but I want to choose the products and services, have personal experience of them and give full disclosure.

I’m certainly not interested in writing about insurance or gaming.

I’ve only found one other web report on this so far, where a commenter confirms receiving payment.

I just don’t want to trundle on that treadmill.

Categorised under “Organizations – clubs and societies”, the group was called “People who think Joe is annoying”. There was a photo of Joe wearing his cricket club cap, with a red line drawn through his head.

The description read: “This group is for people who all agree Joe is an annoying tool.”

Some of the early members published mildly insulting posts, nothing in isolation that would trigger a defamation action in the real world, but collectively … a recipe for depression or worse if they continued to aggregate.

I don’t know the legal definition, but the site was definitely vilifying its subject according to my understanding of the word: “To make vile; debase; degrade.”

Fortunately, some commonsense started to show itself.

One boy wrote: “wow u guys really don’t understand do u. this guy has done nothing wrong. in fact i would say he ha helped people out. u realise that this is the weakest form of bullying and it is also a criminal offence. u cant ignore me by deleting me messages cos im just gonna keep posting them. delete this now before u get urselves into to much shit. trust me i would.”

A local man who discovered the group entered the discussion: “ok everyone who thinks this is a funny joke – think about this….. think about what kind of impact this kind of thing can have on someone, I attended a funeral of a young gentleman only 2 days ago who happened to be the victim of bullying … so just imagine if this was about you, your brother/sister, best friend, team mate or other family member … seriously you should all be aware what this can do to people, you should all be ashamed of yourselves for being involved in this group, remove yourselves and this group. its the right thing to do.”

The heat was on the perpetrators. A couple more posts targeted them:

“freeking disgraceful by all involved, all of you need to have a look at yourself, i echo what A and B (names removed) have said and have felt sick since heard about this group was hoping it was a urban myth. Your generation has experienced enough pain and grief without inflicting it someone else who too be honest is honest and would do anything for any body and i emphasise anybody!! really disappointing stuff and makes me wonder what makes you tick and your sense of humour well that’s debatable. Oops, the group creators did a runner. They removed themselves from the group, but left it live and open to comments.”

One lady observed: “I hope that you wankers realise that most the people that have joined this group are the ones telling you what tools you are. Leave the poor kid alone. Oh would you look at that all the admins have left the group, guess they couldn’t hack the crap from all the normal people.”

Someone who knew the creators chipped in: “The group getting deleted tonight. Weren’t you a kid before? They make mistakes. Think stuff is funny and all that shit, they just need an adult to tell them its wrong and not called for them to realise the effects it has on others. I know for a fact the person is scared shitless and doesn’t know what to do.”

Well, it would appear you can’t delete a group if the administrator removes himself as a member. Catch 22. The administrator had to find a deep hole to hide himself in, or come clean, rejoin the group and close it.

Genuinely contrite, or perhaps under some pressure from others, the creator made this post:

Apart from the creator acting stupidly, this whole incident raises a number of issues.

1) Should children be allowed free access to social media websites? No.
2) Should Facebook or any other social media be allowed to publish whatever it likes? No.
3) How do you regulate social media? That’s hard.

In my view, authorities need to urgently examine the regulation of popular interactive websites, such as Facebook.

It is not acceptable that mainstream media are subject to laws and responsibilities, while so-called social media have free reign.

Vilification is a terrible act at any time, but coming in the wake of a local death attributed to bullying, it’s reckless and reprehensible.

Most newspapers are now active online and seek to maintain standards of commentary that conform with societal standards.

The speed of publication and its inherently interactive nature makes for a more dynamic environment, but standards are maintained. Facebook however, in this case at least, abrogated its responsibility as a publisher.

The mechanisms for others to report a distasteful page or comment failed.

Trawl the web and it’s not too difficult to find flame posts, personal attacks and vilification galore.

The task of taming this giant beast is nearly impossible. In most cases, the authorities and those vilified are helpless to act.

I genuinely believe this issue ought to be on the agenda for world leaders to discuss at the United Nations and the G8 summit.

Not the attack on a South Australian teenager, but how to regulate social media without surrendering freedom to publish responsibly.

Wikipedia is a model that should be looked at, ie community editors.

Perhaps every website publisher should have to sign a code of conduct with the webhost and risk automatic closure if the code is breached.

Yes, that will require legislation, bureaucracy, appeal mechanisms and controls. Impose a tax at the hosting level.

They are some options off the top of my head that don’t involve filtering.