| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should google find the forum? |
| Yes! |
|
100% |
[ 9 ] |
| No! |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
yabbadabbadont
Advocate
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 4790
Location: 2 exits past crazy
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| desultory wrote: | | The short answer is that forum administrators, presently, could not do that if we wanted to. |
Then please provide the names, and preferably the addresses, of the people who can. I'm sure that there will be at least one disgruntled, I mean concerned, forum user who is close enough to them to be able to "explain" our concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
burmashave
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yabbadabbadont wrote: | | desultory wrote: | | The short answer is that forum administrators, presently, could not do that if we wanted to. |
Then please provide the names, and preferably the addresses, of the people who can. I'm sure that there will be at least one disgruntled, I mean concerned, forum user who is close enough to them to be able to "explain" our concerns. |
I should add that the Search Bot Indexing Mod I mentioned previously is designed to keep admins aware of which bots are active and how much they are crawling. With this in hand, the management interface is designed to allow admins to conveniently block specific bots by either user agent or IP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultory
Administrator
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 7451
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmpogo wrote: | Flying quite frequently I have never heard THAT excuse !. All modern aircarft are capable to fly in any weather (to continue the metaphor  ) |
While Gentoo Air maintains a largely modern fleet some of the planes are not equipped with the latest in foul weather gear, the new plane should be able to proceed without issue once the crew, passengers and cargo have all been safely transferred.
| gentoo-dev wrote: | | You the Gentoo guys, not you desultory or you, the forum admins |
My understanding of it is that having a specific implementation in mind, and significant time constraints in place for other reasons entirely, the use of a short term fix was effectively rejected.
| gentoo-dev wrote: | | Are you now saying this denial of functionality on these forums was enforced because of some crawling on an entirely different site, namely bugs.gentoo.org ? |
That is consistent with the information that I have available to me, I had not intended to indicate otherwise at any point.
| gentoo-dev wrote: | | Sounds like someone is actively working on completing the bikeshed blueprints...Until they are finished, why can't a sysadmin create a simple robots.txt and let googlebot do its work? |
Despite outward signs to the contrary delays in implementing the necessary changes are not due to bike shed problems. They are due to testing to ensure that the modifications necessary to make the forum software work properly from behind a proxy without breaking badly without one are sufficiently sound to deploy to full time use. Due to various constraints preparing for testing will likely take significantly longer that the actual test phase, according to the information I have available this will not take place in under a weeks time.
| AllenJB wrote: | | Is it just me, or is the way that all the dev teams seem to consider themselves entirely seperate from the rest of the gentoo developers, and will go to extraordinary lengths to make this clear, wrong? |
Consider it a service interaction, the forums require a well maintained system, actually multiple well maintained systems, and there is a group dedicated to providing well maintained systems for services associated with Gentoo. Significant changes to those systems are generally done only by the group dedicated to maintaining them.
| AllenJB wrote: | | Seriously, users don't care about how the developers organise themselves, but shouldn't the development teams be able to talk and co-operate with one another to sort out problems instead of spending all their time making sure that the users know that the forum admins (apparently) don't talk to the infra guys? |
The information I have provided regarding this issue is a direct result of interaction between forum administrators and the infrastructure team.
| burmashave wrote: | | I would like to make it clear that neither I, nor many others in this forum would consider heavy Google spidering a DOS attack. An attack presumes some sort of malevolency on the part of the agent causing the DOS. |
As has been mentioned repeatedly, it was one of several bots involved and it was by no means the only one to have restrictions placed upon it, it is merely the most commonly cited instance.
| burmashave wrote: | | Would we consider users responsible for a DOS attack if the forum simply had a period of extremely high use? |
Not exactly.
| burmashave wrote: | | Re-enable Google spidering with several modifications to manage load while Squid and other modifications are being implemented. |
Given the present circumstances, including the current estimate of when the proxy approach is most likely to be deployed and the changes which could be put in place in the mean time, it is highly unlikely that any of these changes would be put in place before the proxy, though at least some are likely to be put into effect once the proxy is in place.
| burmashave wrote: | | With a temporary fix in place, the dev's might consider implementing the Sphinx SQL full-text search engine and run it on InnoDB (unless we are already doing so). |
That certainly appears to be worth investigating.
| burmashave wrote: | | Other phpBB sites at least have the option of an and'd search (implemented as a dropdown selection of "search for all terms" vs. "search for any terms") on the advanced search page. Would this be so hard? |
The search system in use here has been modified in various ways, which I have not examined in any detail, though there is some prior discussion on related subjects.
| burmashave wrote: | | Even better than that would be this Adaptive Quick Search mod that adapts the quick search function so that the quick search searches only the current forum, etc. It gets even more better; the mod provides that the quick search changes to "search within these results" when search results are displayed. Then, and this is cool for our forums, the quick search becomes "search this thread" when viewing a thread. |
Many of those features are already available, if not necessarily the default, still it has features worth considering.
| burmashave wrote: | | There is a mod that monitors and manages search bots that might be a candidate for immediate installation. It provides a nice control panel that provides spider statistics and that provides some fine control over spidering. |
For the time being the restrictions on bot behavior are outside of the effective reach of the forums, if and when that has changed such a feature may well be implemented here.
| burmashave wrote: | | I also found these resources related to phpBB search capabilities and management of large phpBB sites: |
Thanks, I will read over those as time permits.
| burmashave wrote: | | I'm sure I could find and organize more resources if encouraged, and I'd be happy to try to privately contact senior admins of other large phpBB sites, to see how they are handling spidering and searching. |
While theoffer is appreciated, if we need to contact administrators of other large phpBB sites that would likely be done directly, no need to add another layer to the interaction.
| M wrote: | | Something is really rotten here, forum admins and moderators can't do nothing, so where can we find that infra guy? |
We are in contact with the infrastructure team on an ongoing basis, at this point users taking their concerns directly to the infrastructure team would be counterproductive.
| M wrote: | | Can we see some status about this or he just blocked all bots and put squid in his TODO list? |
If all goes well, it should proceed during the course of the next few weeks.
| M wrote: | | I can help with php part and maybe squid part, are gentoo patches for phpbb still valid? |
Be careful with offers like that, someone might accept. The proxy configuration appears to have largely been decided at this point. The repository presently reflects the code running the forums currently, further modifications are being tested.
| M wrote: | | Someone should put some sample scheme from backup or something like that for us to download and try to fix something. |
An empty schema is included in the repository containing the source.
| M wrote: | | Even mysql fulltext index can improve this. Forum search problem has been ignored for years, new pgo doesn't have search yet, bugzilla suffers from same problem but now this is just too much! How can we search this forum now? |
The current state of the search feature is in large part due to managing the impact it has on available infrastructure, as the infrastructure changes opportunities to improve the search system may be found and acted upon.
| M wrote: | | This is very urgent and important but this topic is from Oct 20 and it looks like people will forgot about this over time like the other things... So what can we do, moderators to hire an huge army to crawl forum and find duplicates and maybe advise users to browse topics before posting or there is a better thing to do? |
For the time being the better thing to do would be to wait as changes are coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gentoo-dev
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Posts: 172
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultory wrote: | | gentoo-dev wrote: | | You the Gentoo guys, not you desultory or you, the forum admins |
My understanding of it is that having a specific implementation in mind, and significant time constraints in place for other reasons entirely, the use of a short term fix was effectively rejected.
| gentoo-dev wrote: | | Are you now saying this denial of functionality on these forums was enforced because of some crawling on an entirely different site, namely bugs.gentoo.org ? |
That is consistent with the information that I have available to me, I had not intended to indicate otherwise at any point.
|
To sum it up, googlebot is banned from scanning forums.gentoo.org because it created too much load on bugs.gentoo.org and a long-term problem is preferred over a short-term solution (really, 2 minutes at the most).
Drop a new robots.txt in the doc root of forums.gentoo.org, edit apache config to lift googlebot ban or lift the iptables rules, whereever the ban is and possibly restart apache. It's not really that hard, is it? | Code: | User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /cgi-bin
Crawl-delay: 5
Request-rate: 1/5
User-agent: *
Disallow: / |
Now, if no gentoo admin can spare a couple of minutes to solve this, it's time they found another project to "contribute" to and leave their places to guys who really care. Sorry if this sounds too harsh, but this issue has been around for far too long than it should have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bunder
Bodhisattva
Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 5213
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Now, if no gentoo admin can spare a couple of minutes to solve this, it's time they found another project to "contribute" to and leave their places to guys who really care. |
you act as if we can dictate to infra... unfortunately, the opposite is quite the truth... since they own (and or) operate the boxes, we're essentially at their mercy when they decide something needs to go away. 
_________________
goodbye fgo. it was nice knowing you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bunder wrote: | | Quote: | | Now, if no gentoo admin can spare a couple of minutes to solve this, it's time they found another project to "contribute" to and leave their places to guys who really care. |
you act as if we can dictate to infra... unfortunately, the opposite is quite the truth... since they own (and or) operate the boxes, we're essentially at their mercy when they decide something needs to go away. |
so, raise some noise on gentoo-dev - and isn't the council there to resolve matters like this?
The forums are hardly usable without google.
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.
|
Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burmashave
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is with regret that I say that I usually have had better luck with the IT groups at companies for which I have worked as compared to the response here. Do folks in these forums still say that something seems very ungentoo-like? I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single suggestion in this thread good enough to rise above, "We will look into it."
| desultory wrote: | | burmashave wrote: | | With a temporary fix in place, the dev's might consider implementing the Sphinx SQL full-text search engine and run it on InnoDB (unless we are already doing so). |
That certainly appears to be worth investigating.
| burmashave wrote: | | Other phpBB sites at least have the option of an and'd search (implemented as a dropdown selection of "search for all terms" vs. "search for any terms") on the advanced search page. Would this be so hard? |
The search system in use here has been modified in various ways, which I have not examined in any detail, though there is some prior discussion on related subjects.
| burmashave wrote: | | Even better than that would be this Adaptive Quick Search mod that adapts the quick search function so that the quick search searches only the current forum, etc. It gets even more better; the mod provides that the quick search changes to "search within these results" when search results are displayed. Then, and this is cool for our forums, the quick search becomes "search this thread" when viewing a thread. |
Many of those features are already available, if not necessarily the default, still it has features worth considering. |
As I stated above, I have participated in another discussion intended to improve the search features and capabilities here. I gave up on that one because it seemed to me that there was no real desire on the part of the maintainers to make positive changes. That was years ago, and as near as I can tell, little or nothing came from those discussions. Mebbe the stop words list was modified. The problem with prior discussion is that it is they are just that. Nothing more, at least in a noticeable way.
I am trying to work with the maintainers' preference for an internal search versus an external one, although I would much prefer the Google approach. (In fact, the term "site:forums.gentoo.org" can fly off of my fingers almost from muscle memory.) I am also trying to take the devs/maintainers at the statement of, "... if you find a phpBB based board with a more effective search engine you will certainly find an interested audience here, unless we beat them to it." (emphasis mine)
By contrast, I have tried to present some simple improvements that were implemented in in other phpBB installations a long time ago, and I am pointing to how those improvements were actually implemented. These are not "pie in the sky" feature requests. I am a member of a motorcycle forum that allows users to specify and'd versus or'd search on the advanced search page. That forum is maintained by someone with a very basic knowledge of phpBB. Does anyone in this thread disagree that the option of an and'd search would be an improvement? None of the search engines I use perform or'd searches, and it is impossible to narrow results without.
How about some good faith? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultory
Administrator
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 7451
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| energyman76b wrote: | | so, raise some noise on gentoo-dev - and isn't the council there to resolve matters like this? |
That would be a waste of time for all involved. Adding to the traffic volume gathering around this will do nothing but slow the resolution of the problem. Totally aside from which, what would you expect the council to do considering that the main problem is that those involved are occupied with tasks of higher personal priority than configuring servers for free? Are they to dismiss people for having a life outside of Gentoo?
| energyman76b wrote: | | The forums are hardly usable without google. |
As a regular user of the internal search functions, I disagree.
| burmashave wrote: | | It is with regret that I say that I usually have had better luck with the IT groups at companies for which I have worked as compared to the response here. |
Not to belabor the obvious, but that is their job. Unlike them, those maintaining the infrastructure for Gentoo need to do something else to provide themselves with internet access and incidentals such as food and shelter.
| burmashave wrote: | | Do folks in these forums still say that something seems very ungentoo-like? |
Indeed, though "when it is ready" is generally accepted as the canonical delivery schedule for Gentoo projects.
| burmashave wrote: | | I find it hard to believe that there has not been a single suggestion in this thread good enough to rise above, "We will look into it." |
For the moment, looking into it is as far as any modifications not immediately necessary are going to progress. After such changes are in place there are other problems which need to be addressed with relative alacrity. Only after that second series of changes is fully implemented will any feature requests be given anything more than a relatively brief evaluation. That does not mean there is no interest in additional changes, just that such changes are not likely to appear before other major changes have been implemented.
| burmashave wrote: | | How about some good faith? |
How so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burmashave
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good faith refers to good faith action, meaning that the folks here might better consider your side of the argument were you to take some small concrete action to indicate that your words are not merely words that have heard before. When I stated that I usually have better response from corporate IT departments, I meant that corporate IT departments, in my experience, are renowned for stalling, obfuscation and double talk about why things cannot be done. Yes, I understand that this is an OS effort. That is why I would not voice a strong complaint without being willing to help fix the problem.
Nearly all of the posters in this thread have indicated that the internal search engine is lame and that Google is a better tool. They have expressed grave concern that the community may be severely harmed by forced reliance on the internal search tool in its current state. You have disagreed on all fronts. The great unwashed forum members are wrong, and our suggestions miss the point. That is what I meant by ungentoo-like. "Ungentoo-like" is not a matter of release schedules; it's a matter of respect for the forum members themselves, canonically speaking.
Of course, I would not ask you to agree with everything that has been said. On the other hand, I feel a problem exists when mods/devs/admins insist that there is no problem when users are screaming that there is a problem; when members hear promises that have been made before; when members are told that none of a series of well-thought suggestions are valid; and when members are told that easy things simply cannot be done.
Many years back I learned a valuable lesson when my boss at the time insisted that I do something against my better judgment. He told me, "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." But it would be kind to say that he was less than truthful with me. Against my better judgment, I did as he insisted, and as it turned out, I was very lucky that I was not fatally electrocuted (by 30,000 volts). I have since become leery of, "Trust us. We know what we're doing." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultory
Administrator
Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 7451
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burmashave wrote: | | Good faith refers to good faith action, meaning that the folks here might better consider your side of the argument were you to take some small concrete action to indicate that your words are not merely words that have heard before. |
To be as clear as I can, I am not taking sides in an argument I am attempting to disseminate and collect information. My words are only words, words confer data, that is their purpose and mine here. As for actions, work is being done and in due time that will be evident without needing to rely on my mere words.
| burmashave wrote: | | Nearly all of the posters in this thread have indicated that the internal search engine is lame and that Google is a better tool. They have expressed grave concern that the community may be severely harmed by forced reliance on the internal search tool in its current state. You have disagreed on all fronts. |
While I have disagreed with the hyperbole regarding the uselessness of the internal search engine and the mortal danger to the utility of the forums that having impediments to Google pose, I have at no point opined that the internal search engine is superior to that provided by Google, even considering that the main strength of their search engine is the breadth of the index which is essentially nullified by using it to search a single site. The fact remains that the internal search engine does work, however suboptimal it may be.
| burmashave wrote: | | The great unwashed forum members are wrong, and our suggestions miss the point. |
While your hygienic practices are your own concern, the primary point that you seem to be missing is that the solution which has been decided upon is being implemented and until that is in place any other modifications will not be implemented.
| burmashave wrote: | | That is what I meant by ungentoo-like. "Ungentoo-like" is not a matter of release schedules; it's a matter of respect for the forum members themselves, canonically speaking. |
From my perspective it is actually very much about release schedules, the release being when the proxy system gets deployed, that only occurring once it appears to be ready. As for any supposed general disrespect of forum users, I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of my respect for them or lack thereof, respect is an interpersonal matter which is evidenced poorly by protestations. If you, in either of the editorial or direct senses, prefer to think that I have a deep and abiding personal disrespect for you, in the same sense as before, that is your choice, one which I have neither the interest, the energy nor the time to attempt to change so long as I can still operate productively around those harboring similar delusions.
| burmashave wrote: | | Of course, I would not ask you to agree with everything that has been said. On the other hand, I feel a problem exists when mods/devs/admins insist that there is no problem when users are screaming that there is a problem; when members hear promises that have been made before; when members are told that none of a series of well-thought suggestions are valid; and when members are told that easy things simply cannot be done. |
When exactly have any moderators or administrators claimed that this was not a problem? There is a problem, it is being worked on, suggestions that are not presently implementable are practically invalid so long as they are not able to be implemented, and some simple things really are not currently available solutions. Something to consider, if changing robots.txt would resolve the problem in its entirety what reason would there be to not do it?
| burmashave wrote: | | Many years back I learned a valuable lesson when my boss at the time insisted that I do something against my better judgment. He told me, "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." But it would be kind to say that he was less than truthful with me. Against my better judgment, I did as he insisted, and as it turned out, I was very lucky that I was not fatally electrocuted (by 30,000 volts). I have since become leery of, "Trust us. We know what we're doing." |
However incompetent you may consider us to collectively be, we are what is available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| can't someone just ask IBM or Nvidia for an extra machine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burmashave
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Dec 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| desultory wrote: | | I am attempting to disseminate and collect information. My words are only words, words confer data, that is their purpose and mine here. |
Words are words? Shocked, I am. Can it ever be the purpose of words to inseminate misinformation?
| desultory wrote: | | While I have disagreed with the hyperbole regarding the uselessness of the internal search engine and the mortal danger to the utility of the forums that having impediments to Google pose, I have at no point opined that the internal search engine is superior to that provided by Google, even considering that the main strength of their search engine is the breadth of the index which is essentially nullified by using it to search a single site. The fact remains that the internal search engine does work, however suboptimal it may be. |
Now it is clear. Google reigns supreme because of its superior breadth. Breadth of search would be the reason why Google pushed Alta Vista into oblivion, no? Would it also be the reason why the phpBB community forums use Google for their forum search? Relevance is merely a word. Rankings of results merely convey information. Sometimes some information is more useful than other information.
| desultory wrote: | | While your hygienic practices are your own concern, the primary point that you seem to be missing is that the solution which has been decided upon is being implemented and until that is in place any other modifications will not be implemented. |
The point that you seem to be missing is that I've heard the same promise before. Perhaps it is in earnest at the moment. Time will tell, and I hope to be happily surprised. Beyond the new and better solution, once implemented, I have little hope that the internal search functions will be improved. For improvements on that front, I'll expect more from phpBB forums in which the maintainers have relatively little phpBB experience. This is merely my experience to date.
| desultory wrote: | | As for any supposed general disrespect of forum users, I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of my respect for them or lack thereof, respect is an interpersonal matter which is evidenced poorly by protestations. If you, in either of the editorial or direct senses, prefer to think that I have a deep and abiding personal disrespect for you, in the same sense as before, that is your choice, one which I have neither the interest, the energy nor the time to attempt to change so long as I can still operate productively around those harboring similar delusions. |
We move from hyperbole to sophistry. Respect is not always an interpersonal matter, nor are respectful relationships necessarily devoid of protestation, although knee-jerk refutation would not likely be considered evidence of respect.
| desultory wrote: | | When exactly have any moderators or administrators claimed that this was not a problem? There is a problem, it is being worked on, suggestions that are not presently implementable are practically invalid so long as they are not able to be implemented, and some simple things really are not currently available solutions. Something to consider, if changing robots.txt would resolve the problem in its entirety what reason would there be to not do it? |
No one said that changing robots.txt would solve any problem in its entirety. Now, whose foot is the other hyperbole on? Some did say that it would be a change likely requiring little more than 5 minutes of effort that would reduce the effect of the problem cited for blocking site spidering. So far, I think the only reason against trying such a change is the recursive one you present above.
Changing robots.txt is not a good solution. If it were a good solution, it would be implemented. It hasn't been implemented; therefore, it is not a good solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7193
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Locked for now, will be unlocked when something new could be said about the issue. For details on the issues, please read the most informative posts from desultory.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordcris
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 248
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timeBandit
Bodhisattva
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 2669
Location: here, there or in transit
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: goodle doesn't index site:forums.gentoo.org |
|
|
| lordcris wrote: | | do you know why [Google] is not indexing site:forums.gentoo.org |
Yes, we do.
| Quote: | | i[t] would be nice to use google functionalities for searching the forums. |
Yes, it would.
Merged the above here.
_________________
Plants are pithy, brooks tend to babble--I'm content to lie between them.
Super-short f.g.o checklist: Search first, strip comments, mark solved, help others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EOF
Guru
Joined: 02 Jul 2003
Posts: 345
Location: Usingen
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: Why is forums.gentoo.org hidden from google? |
|
|
I dont understand, why the forum is hidden from Google
for so long.
This will reduce the size of the community over time, if not
already happen. I already noticed this for the german forum.
If i search the german version of google for "gentoo forums"
i get several low quality gentoo forums. Possible gentoo users
will think on of those is the official forum.
It also was useful for using google for searching the forum,
what just is traffic for google until i use the search link.
Where do devs come from, if we do not get new members?
_________________
Lenovo Thinkpad T400, 4 GB RAM, Gentoo Linux amd64. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atrus123
Guru
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 339
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They were probably tired of becoming such a spam target. I hadn't even realized the site was hidden until you mentioned it.
I think it should be available in Google. After all, I find that Google does a better job of searching that the built in fgo search.
_________________
"I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt."
-Andrew Sullivan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slycordinator
Advocate
Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 3053
Location: Redmond, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because they made it so gentoo spiders can't search the forums at all. Though I have to wonder why they'd make the spiders not find the forums (as opposed to searching them).
_________________
My political stance/bias
slycordinator != slycoordinator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hensan
l33t
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 868
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just tried changing my user-agent string to googlebot, you get:
403 Forbidden
Nice. Way to promote the distro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drone1
Apprentice
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 228
Location: United States of Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To much demand on the forums equipment?
IDK what this forum runs on but, I think we would see some performance hit with the forum responsiveness, don't you?
_________________
The GUI has become stale to me.... Where can I find the next interface leap forward? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hensan
l33t
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 868
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I doubt it. Back when Gentoo was at its peak these forums could have over 1000 simultaneous users, now we have barely 100. And back then googlebot was allowed in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilla
Administrator
Joined: 07 Aug 2002
Posts: 7193
Location: Pelotas, BR
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
merged more.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Forums Feedback
