By using Ping, you are actually informing major server that you have updated your site/blog. Thus, Pinging your site/blog can help you increase your site traffic.Below is a list of pinging services avaiable:http://pingoat.com/>>>Pingoat offer pinging to plenty of server. Using pingoat can help you ping a lot of server in a few seconds only. The disadvantage is that you are allow to ping the same address only once per day.http://www.pingomatic.com/>>>Ping-o-matic offer good pinging service. You can Bookmark the result page of the ping and when you want to ping when you update your site. Just click the Bookmark address and it will ping automatically. No Need to re-type yur site address and site name again.http://kping.com/pings/ping.php>>>King Ping is another good pinging service. It also ping a lot of server at just a few second.http://www.ipings.com/>>>iPING is very easy to use and fast.http://ping.feedburner.com/>>>Ping Feedburner can notify Feedburner about your updated feed.JAPANESE SITEhttp://blog.goo.ne.jp/xmlrpchttp://www.blogoon.net/ping/Allow French Blog Pinging onlyhttp://www.weblogues.com/Others pinging services:http://www.focuslook.com/ping.php?url=http://www.yourblog.comhttp://www.holycowdude.com/rpc/ping/
Showing posts with label World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World. Show all posts
What is Google page rank PR?
PageRank is a link analysis algorithm that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of documents, such as the World Wide Web, with the purpose of "measuring" its relative importance within the set. The algorithm may be applied to any collection of entities with reciprocal quotations and references. The numerical weight that it assigns to any given element E is also called the PageRank of E and denoted by PR(E).
PageRank was developed at Stanford University by Larry Page (hence the name Page-Rank[1]) and Sergey Brin as part of a research project about a new kind of search engine. The project started in 1995 and led to a functional prototype, named Google, in 1998. Shortly after, Page and Brin founded Google Inc., the company behind the Google search engine. While just one of many factors which determine the ranking of Google search results, PageRank continues to provide the basis for all of Google's web search tools.[2]
The name PageRank is a trademark of Google. The PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999 ). The patent is not assigned to Google but to Stanford University.
PageRank was developed at Stanford University by Larry Page (hence the name Page-Rank[1]) and Sergey Brin as part of a research project about a new kind of search engine. The project started in 1995 and led to a functional prototype, named Google, in 1998. Shortly after, Page and Brin founded Google Inc., the company behind the Google search engine. While just one of many factors which determine the ranking of Google search results, PageRank continues to provide the basis for all of Google's web search tools.[2]
The name PageRank is a trademark of Google. The PageRank process has been patented (U.S. Patent 6,285,999 ). The patent is not assigned to Google but to Stanford University.
New Scam -- Sending Counterfeit Checks Directly to Banks!
New Scam -- Sending Counterfeit Checks Directly to Banks!
The fraudulent official check scam artists are trying new techniques to separate honest people from their money. One of the latest scams is cleverly designed to look like a check being sent directly to a financial institution by the FDIC, for deposit to a legitimate customer's account!
According to an FDIC May 1, 2007, alert (SA-112-2007), banks are receiving bogus letters that claim to be from the FDIC (but aren't), instructing the banks to credit official bank checks (which turn out to be counterfeit) to a customer's deposit account.
You should alert your mailroom and/or mail deposit staff to this scam, and instruct them --
Because this scam reveals that a depositor's account information is probably in the wrong hands, you should advise your customer of the problem, and strongly suggest that affected accounts be closed out and new accounts be opened.
Internet Fraud Still Rising
The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) recently released their 2006 Internet Crime Report. The IC3 receives complaints online and by telephone. They refer them to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Here are highlights of the report:
1. Complaints received on the IC3 website - 207,492 (While this is a 10% decline from 2005, dollars involved in the claims rose.)
2. Complaints by category:
Auction Fraud - 44.9%
Non-delivery - 19.0%
Check fraud - 4.9%
Credit/Debit card fraud - 4.8%
Computer fraud - 2.8%
Confidence fraud - 2.2%
Financial institution fraud - 1.6%
Identity theft - 1.6%
Investment fraud - 1.3%
Child pornography - 1.0%
3. Total dollars lost in fraud cases for 2006, $198.44 million. This is an increase over 2005 by 8.37%.
4. The mean dollar loss was $2,529.90 and the median was $724.00.
5. Referrals by Amount of Dollars Lost:
$.01 to $99.99 - 15.6%
$100 -$999.99 - 39.4%
$1,000 - $4,999.99 - 31.6%
$5,000 - $9,999.99 - 7.6%
$10,000 - $99,999.99 - 4.7%
$100,000+ - 1.0%
6. Amount lost by category:
Complaint Type
Median $ Loss per Complaint
% of Reported Total Dollar Loss
Nigerian letter fraud
$5,100
1.7%
Check fraud
$3,744
11.1%
Investment fraud
$$2,694.99
4.0%
Confidence fraud
$2,400
4.5%
Auction fraud
$602
33.0%
Non-delivery
$585
28.1%
Credit/Debit card fraud
$427
3.6%
7. Over half of the perpetrators resided in one of these states, ranked from the highest to lowest:
a. California - 15.2%
b. New York - 9.5%
c. Florida - 9.3%
d. Texas - 6.5%
e. Illinois - 4.5%
f. Pennsylvania - 3.3%
g. Tennessee - 3.2%
h. North Carolina - 3.1%
i. Ohio - 3.1%
j. New Jersey - 3.0%
and the United States contained 60% of the perpetrators, as you can see by the country of origin ranking:
k. United States - 60.9%
l. United Kingdom - 15.9%
m. Nigeria - 5.9%
n. Canada - 5.6%
o. Romania - 1.6%
p. Italy - 1.2%
q. Netherlands - 1.2%
r. Russia - 1.1%
s. Germany - 0.7%
t. South Africa - 0.6%
8. Losses by Age of Complainant Demographics (Average (median) $ Loss per Typical Complaint_
Male - $920
Female - $545
Age - Median Loss
<20 - $500
20-29 - $702
30-39 - $786
40-49 - $827
50-59 - $860
60+ - $866
9. Top 10 states where complaints originated from:
a. California - 13.5%
b. Texas - 7.2%
c. Florida - 7.1%
4. New York - 5.5%
d. Pennsylvania - 4.0%
e. New Jersey - 3.6%
f. Illinois - 3.5%
g. Ohio - 3.3%
h. Virginia - 3.0%
i. Michigan - 2.9%
10. While email was the most common method scammers used to contact their victims, there are others to watch for:
Email - 73.9%
Webpage - 36.0%
Telephone - 17.7%
IM - 12.0%
Snail mail - 10.3%
Wire - 6.3%
Fax - 4.0%
Bulletin board - 3.7%
Chatrooms - 2.4%
In person - 1.5%
Newsgroups - 0.6%
The complete report is available here.
The fraudulent official check scam artists are trying new techniques to separate honest people from their money. One of the latest scams is cleverly designed to look like a check being sent directly to a financial institution by the FDIC, for deposit to a legitimate customer's account!
According to an FDIC May 1, 2007, alert (SA-112-2007), banks are receiving bogus letters that claim to be from the FDIC (but aren't), instructing the banks to credit official bank checks (which turn out to be counterfeit) to a customer's deposit account.
You should alert your mailroom and/or mail deposit staff to this scam, and instruct them --
- Not to deposit the checks to anyone's account.
- To deliver the entire mailing (envelope, instructions and checks) to your security department for further handling.
Because this scam reveals that a depositor's account information is probably in the wrong hands, you should advise your customer of the problem, and strongly suggest that affected accounts be closed out and new accounts be opened.
Internet Fraud Still Rising
The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) recently released their 2006 Internet Crime Report. The IC3 receives complaints online and by telephone. They refer them to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Here are highlights of the report:
1. Complaints received on the IC3 website - 207,492 (While this is a 10% decline from 2005, dollars involved in the claims rose.)
2. Complaints by category:
Auction Fraud - 44.9%
Non-delivery - 19.0%
Check fraud - 4.9%
Credit/Debit card fraud - 4.8%
Computer fraud - 2.8%
Confidence fraud - 2.2%
Financial institution fraud - 1.6%
Identity theft - 1.6%
Investment fraud - 1.3%
Child pornography - 1.0%
3. Total dollars lost in fraud cases for 2006, $198.44 million. This is an increase over 2005 by 8.37%.
4. The mean dollar loss was $2,529.90 and the median was $724.00.
5. Referrals by Amount of Dollars Lost:
$.01 to $99.99 - 15.6%
$100 -$999.99 - 39.4%
$1,000 - $4,999.99 - 31.6%
$5,000 - $9,999.99 - 7.6%
$10,000 - $99,999.99 - 4.7%
$100,000+ - 1.0%
6. Amount lost by category:
Complaint Type
Median $ Loss per Complaint
% of Reported Total Dollar Loss
Nigerian letter fraud
$5,100
1.7%
Check fraud
$3,744
11.1%
Investment fraud
$$2,694.99
4.0%
Confidence fraud
$2,400
4.5%
Auction fraud
$602
33.0%
Non-delivery
$585
28.1%
Credit/Debit card fraud
$427
3.6%
7. Over half of the perpetrators resided in one of these states, ranked from the highest to lowest:
a. California - 15.2%
b. New York - 9.5%
c. Florida - 9.3%
d. Texas - 6.5%
e. Illinois - 4.5%
f. Pennsylvania - 3.3%
g. Tennessee - 3.2%
h. North Carolina - 3.1%
i. Ohio - 3.1%
j. New Jersey - 3.0%
and the United States contained 60% of the perpetrators, as you can see by the country of origin ranking:
k. United States - 60.9%
l. United Kingdom - 15.9%
m. Nigeria - 5.9%
n. Canada - 5.6%
o. Romania - 1.6%
p. Italy - 1.2%
q. Netherlands - 1.2%
r. Russia - 1.1%
s. Germany - 0.7%
t. South Africa - 0.6%
8. Losses by Age of Complainant Demographics (Average (median) $ Loss per Typical Complaint_
Male - $920
Female - $545
Age - Median Loss
<20 - $500
20-29 - $702
30-39 - $786
40-49 - $827
50-59 - $860
60+ - $866
9. Top 10 states where complaints originated from:
a. California - 13.5%
b. Texas - 7.2%
c. Florida - 7.1%
4. New York - 5.5%
d. Pennsylvania - 4.0%
e. New Jersey - 3.6%
f. Illinois - 3.5%
g. Ohio - 3.3%
h. Virginia - 3.0%
i. Michigan - 2.9%
10. While email was the most common method scammers used to contact their victims, there are others to watch for:
Email - 73.9%
Webpage - 36.0%
Telephone - 17.7%
IM - 12.0%
Snail mail - 10.3%
Wire - 6.3%
Fax - 4.0%
Bulletin board - 3.7%
Chatrooms - 2.4%
In person - 1.5%
Newsgroups - 0.6%
The complete report is available here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
