Robot.txt?

[Ralph Friedman]

Re: Robot.txt?

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> "The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 -- hardly
> a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find on the
> entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.[/color]

they're there. In Opera 7.2, in MozillaFirebird 0.7 and in Netscape 7.1 they show up eventually. The page is extremely slow loading, though.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~

[Stan Brown]

Re: Robot.txt?

In article <brgtjo$37084$1 @ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, JustAnotherGuy wrote:[color=blue]
>Stan Brown wrote:[color=green]
>> This isn't rocket surgery.[/color]
>
>Or brain science either!
>Oh, wait--was that intentional?[/color]

Yup.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Robot.txt?

Quoth the raven named Ralph Friedman:
[color=blue]
> Stan Brown wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "The links"? WHAT links, pray tell? I'm using Mozilla 1.4 --
>> hardly a "text-based browser" -- and the only link I could find
>> on the entire page was the mailto for the webmaster.[/color]
>
> they're there. In Opera 7.2, in MozillaFirebird 0.7 and in Netscape
> 7.1 they show up eventually. The page is extremely slow loading,
> though.[/color]

You've missed the point, Ralph. There are no links showing in any of
those browsers if you disable JavaScript. This will keep approximately
15% of visitors out of the site, and, as mentioned, the Googlebot.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Ralph Friedman]

Re: Robot.txt?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
[color=blue]
> You've missed the point, Ralph.[/color]

apparently I have. Serves me right for coming into the middle of a thread. ;-)
[color=blue]
> There are no links showing in any of those browsers if you disable JavaScript. This will keep approximately 15% of visitors out of the site, and, as mentioned, the Googlebot.[/color]

a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than a touch eccentric, I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Robot.txt?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Ralph Friedman wrote:
[color=blue]
> a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than
> a touch eccentric,[/color]

I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
(well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
probably others that I hadn't been aware of).

I don't really care whether you consider me eccentric or not: we might
be a minority, but there's still enough of us to make a difference,
I'd say.
[color=blue]
> I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.[/color]

Nobody says that you _have_ to be nice to Googlebot. There are plenty
of other pages for it to index ;-) so in the end, that's up to you.

Sure, in some legislations there'd be accessibility requirements to
consider too. If you want my authoring advice, then it would be
clear. But I do use a few facilities myself (which have given me
reason to trust them, and configure them as exceptions) where JS is a
requirement, even though I'd recommend against authors doing that in
general.

[Ralph Friedman]

Re: Robot.txt?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
> (well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
> probably others that I hadn't been aware of).[/color]

Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~

[Neal]

Re: Robot.txt?


"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a45b8 ef1ebe55af98b96 2@news.odyssey. net...[color=blue]
> This isn't rocket surgery.[/color]

Just Usenet surgery...

[Neal]

Re: Robot.txt?


"William Tasso" <news27@tbdata. com> wrote in message
news:brh6jb$325 j9$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> Arthur Pratz wrote:[color=green]
> > Before you go off on me, This is my OPINION.[/color]
>
> With the greatest of respect, your opinion on this is utterly and[/color]
completely[color=blue]
> irrelevant.[/color]

Well, not so fast. His opinion will lead him to not get good searches on the
big engines, and will shut off many visitors from using the site, but if he
values creative design and using the latest tech over accessibility, that's
a valid opinion.
[color=blue]
> What matters are the capabilities of the browser your visitor is using.
> Information you can never know with certainty.[/color]

That matters to you, and to me. We should be tolerant of those who'd rather
be flashy (pun intended) than accessible.

Let's all take a deep breath... and let it out...

[Stan Brown]

Re: Robot.txt?

In article <bri6l0$3kr4g$1 @ID-162574.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Ralph Friedman wrote:[color=blue]
>a valid point, although I find disabling JavaScript to be more than a touch eccentric, I guess allowing for it should be considered when designing a page.[/color]

You're entitled to your opinion. I think running with Javascript is
just asking for trouble, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

However, it is a matter of /fact/, not opinion, that search engines
like Google don't run Javascript. A page author who requires
Javascript for navigation thus ensures that the pages won't be
indexed.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Stan Brown]

Re: Robot.txt?

In article <Pine.LNX.4.53. 0312141744040.8 334@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk>
in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
>But I do use a few facilities myself (which have given me
>reason to trust them, and configure them as exceptions) where JS is a
>requirement, even though I'd recommend against authors doing that in
>general.[/color]

Me too. For Mozilla users, Preference Bar extension

http://prefbar.mozdev.org/

allows turning Javascript(1) on with one click for such trusted
sites; putting
user_pref("java script.enabled" , false);
in my user.js file ensures Mozilla starts up again in safe mode even
if I forget to turn JS off.


(1) And setting other preferences, even those not in the Moz UI.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Ralph Friedman]

Re: Robot.txt?

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think running with Javascript is
> just asking for trouble, and I'm entitled to my opinion.[/color]

I see that opinion expressed often, but I never see a reason given for why it's done.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~

[Tim]

Re: Robot.txt?

On 14 Dec 2003 19:29:41 GMT,
"Ralph Friedman" <rot13.enycu@tn eyvafbsgjner.pb z.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?[/color]

Research into browser exploits, and security flaws for the grotty
details, but even without those things you're subjected to pages which
pop up unrequested windows, pages that open two more windows when you
close one (giving you exponential problems when those other windows do
the same thing). Damn fool scripting that dead-loops, or is just too
CPU intensive, and brings your PC to its knees. Scripting in MSIE
(where they lump Active and JavaScript into the one control) that can
seriously damage your computer's health. There's a large list of
reasons not to allow it unless you have to.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

[Ralph Friedman]

Re: Robot.txt?

Tim wrote:
[color=blue]
> Research into browser exploits, and security flaws for the grotty
> details, but even without those things you're subjected to pages which
> pop up unrequested windows, pages that open two more windows when you
> close one (giving you exponential problems when those other windows do
> the same thing). Damn fool scripting that dead-loops, or is just too
> CPU intensive, and brings your PC to its knees. Scripting in MSIE
> (where they lump Active and JavaScript into the one control) that can
> seriously damage your computer's health. There's a large list of
> reasons not to allow it unless you have to.[/color]

I've never disallowed it and never experienced anything of what you describe above.

--
Regards,
Ralph
~~

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Robot.txt?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Ralph Friedman wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I find disabling JS for sites that I don't trust has been a lifesaver
> > (well, figuratively), on several occasions of which I'm aware (and
> > probably others that I hadn't been aware of).[/color]
>
> Humor me a bit here, what are the concerns with having JavaScript enabled?[/color]

Within my own personal experience I can point up two particular
instances, not to mention others where I was uneasy about what had
happened, but don't have enough detail to tell the tale. These are
quite some time back now, and fortunately only involved Windows-based
deskop machines, so the place where the serious work is done (which at
that time was Digital Unix, now it would be Linux) was unharmed. But
they were close calls, and you can see other loopholes of a similar
nature at CERT and suchlike sites, some as recently as the last month
or two.

In one, due to mistyping of a URL, I happened upon a compromised web
site which promptly attempted to use Javascripting to install a
"premium rate dialler" on Windows for me. Fortunately, the desktop in
question is connected to Ethernet and never gets within reach of a
modem; but other folks are known to have racked-up hundreds of quid of
phone bills on such scams. And, as they did indeed /make/ those calls
- whether intentionally or not - the telco is going to bill them, and
deny any responsibility for the scam (see uk.telecom passim).

Another managed to install something that kept retrieving random
popups. Again JS was implicated, along with other vulnerabilities of
that particular browser.

Conclusion: I don't need to execute untrusted code retrieved from
random web sites. If a site makes itself entirely dependent on
javascript for navigation, then the site has even less sense than I
gave it credit for when I decided to visit it. The best move is to
leave.

As I say, I don't mind making an exception for cases where the site
offers some genuinely useful function, and I have reason to trust its
motives. But otherwise - no thanks: "default deny", as our campus
security expert expresses it. There are better (and safer ;-) ways to
have fun.

cheers

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Robot.txt?


"Find Yourself" <null@null.co m> wrote in message
news:bre043$dss $1@news-int2.gatech.edu ...[color=blue]
> "Arthur Pratz" <APratz@worldne t.att.net> wrote in message
> news:9duCb.4446 44$0v4.20770093 @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldn et.att.net...[color=green]
> > Hi, Does anyone know about robot.txt?
> > Do I really need one for my site?
> > If so, how do I get it and what does it do for me?
> > Thanks for your time,
> > Mike Pratz
> > http://www.chowardcompany.com[/color]
>
> Your UI is wrong on so many levels. At least move the navigation to the
> top.[/color]

Wow, I'll say. Even at 1280 x 960 I have to maximize my browser to get the
full benefit of the display in one screen. And not even just on the gateway
page.