tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224874.post8639971650683968296..comments2024-03-09T15:04:13.697-08:00Comments on GeneaBlogie: Some Final Thoughts on "Did Ancestry Violate Copyright Law?"Craig Mansonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06567686559055003349noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224874.post-22809133182988093312008-03-28T15:26:00.000-07:002008-03-28T15:26:00.000-07:00Craig,a couple of comments from someone who has lo...Craig,<BR/><BR/>a couple of comments from someone who has long been involved with search engines and the Internet, but is a newcomer to genealogy.<BR/><BR/>First, it is indeed possible to use robots.txt to block some bots while allowing others. Here is the example from <A HREF="http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html<br/>" REL="nofollow">robotstxt.org</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>User-agent: BadBot<BR/>Disallow: /<BR/><BR/>Second, people complaining about having their web pages copied by other entities with the intent to maintain a permanent archive should be familiar with archive.org, which does just that, albeit as a non-profit.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>AmbarAmbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635209129053487994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224874.post-28806978636427611572007-09-15T21:27:00.000-07:002007-09-15T21:27:00.000-07:00I agree with you, Lindsay. The facts in the Field...I agree with you, Lindsay. The facts in the Field case are unique, and we don"t know how a case with different facts might turn out. I understand what you're saying about the meta-tag. Maybe there's a technical solution to that.Craig Mansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06567686559055003349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224874.post-82506560241047394792007-09-15T20:54:00.000-07:002007-09-15T20:54:00.000-07:00Hi Craig,I'm too rushed to read it all again at th...Hi Craig,<BR/>I'm too rushed to read it all again at the moment, but when I read the Field case it seemed to me that the judge said that Field had created a robots.txt file that said allow *, i.e. he explicitly gave permission to crawl. Also, that he knew he could add the no-cache meta tag and had the ability to do so and deliberately chose not to. We don't know that a judge faced with a case where the complainant didn't create a robots.txt, or couldn't, would still decide the same way.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the meta tag might be necessary is particularly disturbing because the meta tag does not allow you to treat different search engines differently. You may want to allow Google to cache, knowing their mode of operation, you may even be a Google partner, but you may at the same time not want Ancestry to do the same because they are your competitor. I am infinitely less qualified than you to interpret the findings, but I didn't read as much into this one aspect as you have.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for a very informative series of posts, the world needs more bloggers like yourself to provide expert calm reasoned examination of issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8224874.post-38341152491822497702007-09-14T19:32:00.000-07:002007-09-14T19:32:00.000-07:00Well said!Thank you Craig for all the time and eff...Well said!<BR/><BR/>Thank you Craig for all the time and effort that this series must have required. The hard work and effort shows --- and I am better equipped to form an opinion of this/these issue(s) as a result of your fine teaching. And I know that those within the blogging community who read your words will join me in saying, "Well Done!"<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/>Terry Thornton<BR/>Hill Country of Monroe County, MississippiTerry Thorntonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01251750196282728118noreply@blogger.com