<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
What is interesting to me is how the search engines pick content to
index.<br>
Understanding that can create a very private site which almost never
shows up and yet is not restricted in an active sense.<br>
Alternatively, if the same content is presented differently it will be
cross-indexed repeatedly.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I see a lot of you guys did take a look at the site in
question.<br>
If you simply post information like would be the case if your desk was
left to pile up for a month or 2, it may be shunned by the search
engines? <br>
The indexing then follows a course which looks for stadardization and
order within the content?<br>
<br>
The thing that concerns me is how what I kept as a personal repository
went from being able to be found utilizing virtually every unique
keyword from its front page wording to virtually invisible except for 3
small portions.<br>
<br>
When I look for information I would like to think that a carefully
planned search would find me everything linked to the web<br>
that I am looking for.<br>
Obviously this is not the case, and a significant potential problem .<br>
If the case in point I have created is not unique, the question then
is.<br>
How much more content exists that is only to be found if one
specifically knows the URL it is resident upon.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I cloned the original site onto another server
yesterday. <br>
The content of the 2 will diverge over time but what I wanted to see<br>
is if the search engines treat this new site any different from the
original one.<br>
One thing I also did was to leave the archived content linked files to
both sites resident only on the first site.<br>
When a link say brings up a picture, it will load from the first site
and not be resident as a true copy on the second site.<br>
The statistical counter is loaded onto both sites and should show the
use of files and uploading from the first via the second site.<br>
<br>
Amara Graps wrote:
<blockquote cite="mida5258c00411130708317581d7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">megao at sasktel.net:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can someone have the content of their site blocked from the major search
engines and deleted from the results of
past successful search terms that have brought hits?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
naddy at mips.inka.de:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You can put up a /robots.txt and tell the spiders not to index your
site. The major search engines should honor that.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
True, they should. I am sufficiently annoyed with companies that don't
adhere by netiquette's courtesies (i.e. respecting the wishes of the web
site's robot.txt file), that I usually block their future access to my
web site (using .htaccess) if I think that they've behaved badly. It's a
small thing to do; single IPs probably don't matter, but at least I can
annoy them in return, and it gives me small sense that I have a say in
how I want my materials accessed.
Amara
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>