Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: "Barton L. Phillips" <barton@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:16:27 GMT
Dave {Reply Address In.sig} wrote:
Barton L. Phillips wrote:This looks a lot like what Buck sent me in a zip file. I am examining both and may (probably more for fun than need) implement something (at least for a little while and look at the logs).Dave {Reply Address In.sig} wrote:It depends on how sophisticated you want to get. I came acrossAll the reputable search engines honour the robots.txt file. TheCould you expand on "other means". I use .htaccess and .htpasswd etc. but what else do you have in mind?
malicious ones are the ones that ignore it, and yes, you do need other
means of restricting them.
http://www.neilgunton.com/spambot_trap/ when browsing one day and it
looked like fun.
In reality I have not seen any problems relating to bots. I check my logs for user agents and look at who/what is reading my robots.txt and have not seen anything that alarmed me to date. However, buck's logic will give me a little bit better log to look at.
Thanks
--
----------------
Barton L. Phillips
Applied Technology Resources, Inc.
Tel: (818)652-9850
Web: http://www.applitec.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: Allodoxaphobia
- Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- References:
- robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: caveman
- Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: Dave {Reply Address In.sig}
- Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: Barton L. Phillips
- Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- From: Dave {Reply Address In.sig}
- robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- Prev by Date: Re: bash_history set to zero length
- Next by Date: Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- Previous by thread: Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- Next by thread: Re: robots.txt: Good, Bad, Ugly?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|