Prev: Word question (or Pages I guess)
Next: MacZot / theMacSale / SuperCard
From: Geoff Berrow on 16 Mar 2010 15:26
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:53:08 +0000, Sara Merriman
<saramerriman(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks for all the help guys, this page isn't a state secret, we just
>don't want it showing up if someone does a search for the client.

I wouldn't rely on this kind of technology. If you don't want
something found, you either need to protect it, or leave it off the
'net.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

From: Woody on 16 Mar 2010 18:00
Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:53:08 +0000, Sara Merriman
> <saramerriman(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for all the help guys, this page isn't a state secret, we just
> >don't want it showing up if someone does a search for the client.
>
> I wouldn't rely on this kind of technology. If you don't want
> something found, you either need to protect it, or leave it off the
> 'net.

The robots.txt file works fine.

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com
From: Geoff Berrow on 17 Mar 2010 06:22
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:43 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
wrote:

>> I wouldn't rely on this kind of technology. If you don't want
>> something found, you either need to protect it, or leave it off the
>> 'net.
>
>The robots.txt file works fine.

as does file_get_contents(). :)


--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

From: Woody on 17 Mar 2010 06:29
Geoff Berrow <blthecat(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:00:43 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >> I wouldn't rely on this kind of technology. If you don't want
> >> something found, you either need to protect it, or leave it off the
> >> 'net.
> >
> >The robots.txt file works fine.
>
> as does file_get_contents(). :)

Well, yes, if you have a PHP site but are showing static pages and think
about it at the time when you write it.
The advantage of the robots.txt file, is that it is just a text file you
drop in any folder, and you are done. It is respected by all the large
web crawling agents (if you look at the weblogs it is the first thing
they try to open).



--
Woody
From: Geoff Berrow on 17 Mar 2010 06:45
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:29:50 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
wrote:

>> >The robots.txt file works fine.
>>
>> as does file_get_contents(). :)
>
>Well, yes, if you have a PHP site but are showing static pages and think
>about it at the time when you write it.
>The advantage of the robots.txt file, is that it is just a text file you
>drop in any folder, and you are done. It is respected by all the large
>web crawling agents (if you look at the weblogs it is the first thing
>they try to open).

I'm not saying robots.txt doesn't work, just that it doesn't
necessarily mean that your pages content will never be searchable.

Protection should be under one's own control.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Word question (or Pages I guess)
Next: MacZot / theMacSale / SuperCard