Comments on: Unavailable_After is totally and utterly useless http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/ If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here. Thu, 22 May 2008 17:13:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Google to change the Robots Exclusion Protocol again http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-772 Google to change the Robots Exclusion Protocol again Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:35:33 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-772 [...] us robots meta tags for non-HTML resources like PDF documents, images or video clips, and with Unavailable_after Google made a few clueless news sites happy. With the rel-nofollow microformat on the other hand, [...]

[…] us robots meta tags for non-HTML resources like PDF documents, images or video clips, and with Unavailable_after Google made a few clueless news sites happy. With the rel-nofollow microformat on the other hand, […]

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-169 Sebastian Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:25:00 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-169 Thanks Matt :)<br/><br/>Neuro, I agree that possibly newspaper publishers *are* Google's 'targeted audience' WRT to unavailable_after. However, even if it is a CYA it deserves a comment when it is announced as a call for action, inviting you and me and everyone. An announcement like "dear newspapers, if you don't want us caching your stuff and sending you free traffic after the initial coverage, just implement unavailable_after, a REP tag we've created for you guys." would have prevented me from writing this piece. I admit that when the background is legal pressure, Google does not deserve bashing. I think my post doesn't bash Google. If so, I apologize. Thanks Matt :)

Neuro, I agree that possibly newspaper publishers *are* Google’s ‘targeted audience’ WRT to unavailable_after. However, even if it is a CYA it deserves a comment when it is announced as a call for action, inviting you and me and everyone. An announcement like “dear newspapers, if you don’t want us caching your stuff and sending you free traffic after the initial coverage, just implement unavailable_after, a REP tag we’ve created for you guys.” would have prevented me from writing this piece. I admit that when the background is legal pressure, Google does not deserve bashing. I think my post doesn’t bash Google. If so, I apologize.

]]> By: neuro http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-168 neuro Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:01:00 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-168 yeh But....<br/><br/>I bet this is so they can say to newspaper publishers (or courts) like the ones who took them to court.<br/><br/>"here is the mechanisiam for you protect your paid for archives so you can stuff your rinkiny dink protectionist court case up your ass" yeh But….

I bet this is so they can say to newspaper publishers (or courts) like the ones who took them to court.

“here is the mechanisiam for you protect your paid for archives so you can stuff your rinkiny dink protectionist court case up your ass”

]]> By: Matt Stoddart http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-167 Matt Stoddart Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:37:00 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/unavailable_after-is-totally-and-utterly-useless/#comment-167 GREAT POST!! <br/><br/>And this is brilliant, "We don't need no stinking metas" from "Another Brick in the Wall Part Web 2.0" GREAT POST!!

And this is brilliant, “We don’t need no stinking metas” from “Another Brick in the Wall Part Web 2.0″

]]>