Errr I was referring to the image feature in Google not some stupid porn site. And anyone who doesn't know how to use the UseNet for free porn doesn't deserve it.<br><br>-Foxsports.com, My SB XL hi-lites
Am I missing something here? If perfect 10 does not want google then they put a norobot line on the default.html of their site? What is their problem? Do they want their cake and eat it too? As in, do they want their site come up in google searches but they don't want the thumbnails? OK, pinheads, there is a way to exclude pictures from the googlebot.<br><br>Something is missing.<br><br>Ah, I read to the end. The company was jiggy with the thumbnails until they figured out they could make money selling cell phone thumbnails but the already exposed google thumbnails were just as good. But the cat was out of the bag.<br><br>I'm judge Judy on March 8. You bunch of douchebags. You permitted google to farm the thumbnails and now you want them back. Boo-Hoo. They are gone. Take the googlebot permission off and then go make some perfect 11's. The 10's are gone.<br><br>They have no case. Certainly the judge will rule against. p10 has no option but to go shoot new beaver.<br><br>Now the really sad thing is that a bunch of pimple faced teens have read about this and the lighbulb goes off. They harvest all of the thumbnails today and sell them 10 cents per thousand. Double boo hoo p10 but there is a penalty for not foreseeing the future. It's called bankruptcy.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Yeah yeah yeah... <br><br>Seriously, though, Google has been walking a tightrope with the image search, and P10 may have a real case here. However, P10 has to prove that there's been a harm caused. In other words, they have to prove that Google has caused them to lose money. A tough pece of evidence to come by when you're talking a/b cyberspace. The copyright issue is also real, but even if the court finds against Google, I'll betcha my chocolate covered bagel that it would be overturned on appeal.<br><br>In the meantime, Google needs to pay more attention to image rights so they don't put the image search feature in harm's way.<br><br>Now, about this usenet thing...<br><br>
i have instructional content that i put on a website. i protect this site from search engines and the general public. i have other materials that i hope the world finds and uses when teaching kids. this material is on websites that can be harvested by google's bots and the like. search engines have been around long enough that every webmaster knows their role. this just seems like a silly court case.<br><br>i didn't read the article (and, therein lies the problem, no doubt), but this process i use is incredibly simple for me to do and it works. when i search google, none of my protected stuff is there and all of my more public stuff is there. i have the control.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
You got it right without reading the story. Every webmaster knows how to turn off and on the bots and where they can and cannot go. This is a silly case of a site wishing they did not leave the barn door open for something they now realize has value. The thumbnails downloaded to phones. (Whoda thunk?)<br><br>They would only have a case if the googlebot paid for a membership and then went in and harvested. Google cannot be that stupid. So there can be no merit to this at all.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
[color:blue]They would only have a case if the googlebot paid for a membership and then went in and harvested</font color=blue><br><br>You have a good point there <br>If I remember correctly full nudity images on a Porn Site = you have to be a member right ? and 18 and over.<br><br>Soooo<br>If the porn site is coded in such a way as to allow search engines into the site who is to say a savvy 16 year old could not break in as well ? Along the same line , if those images came off the porn sites home page then those images are public domain <-- scary if you can view images that are full beavers before you hit the membership tag. <br><br>I have been to some news sites that you cannot even copy and paste text let alone right click to copy image to desktop.<br><br>Bottom line;<br>IMO that porn site is so poorly coded = not secure and should be shut down immediately <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If the porn site is coded in such a way as to allow search engines into the site who is to say a savvy 16 year old could not break in as well ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>What? You click, "yes I am" and so does the googlebot. As long as the googlebot serves up the images in "you should be 18" level then no problem.<br><br>Paying is completely different.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>IMO that porn site is so poorly coded = not secure and should be shut down immediately <p><hr></blockquote><p>What? Shutdown a site because it is poorly coded? The first amendment protects your right to write poor HTML code. If that became a crime I would hear crickets when I opened up my browser.<br><br><br><br><br>(__*__)
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.