Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submitlogin
UnoriginalGuy 647 days ago | link | parent

Your link is pointing at 2008. That is four years ago. Hardly proof of anything.

You are right about the content type however.



blauwbilgorgel 647 days ago | link

Correct. It doesn't proof much, but that they previously had a buggy robots.txt.

Usually these posts are accompanied by a declining traffic graph for Bing referrers. That would give us more proof and a timeframe to work with.

The post gives two options for their absence in Bing results: a fault at Microsoft or as a punishment. With their history I think a fault on their own part is a more likely option. I can't rule that out.

-----

Yver 646 days ago | link

You are arguing in bad faith. The robots.txt from 2008 is a whitelist of 190+ known crawlers. It doesn't include Bing, which was launched in 2009.

In 2008, kogan.com was a parked domain. It has nothing to do with the current owner(s).

-----

blauwbilgorgel 646 days ago | link

The choice for linking to a 2008 file was not the best. At least their current robots.txt is buggy too, so it isn't all that relevant for proving a track record.

I thought kogan.com was around in 2008 as the blog goes back to 2008.

The robots.txt is whitelisting bots with agents like "No" and "Due to a deficiency in Java it's not currently possible to set the User-agent." but then blocks all other known crawlers (like MSNbot and Yahoo Slurp).

I was not trying to be deceitful. IMO: Deceitful is a PR stunt arguing it is the fault or an evil plan of Microsoft, when you don't present anything to substantiate your claim, and it is a fact the webmaster is at fault in the vast majority of these cases.

-----




Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: