Robots.txt & freesites ?

[wolfie]

Thanks to board search feature I found that people was replied to this.

Yeah, I see things different way now. Thanks for replying and been open-minded.

Link popularity was a thing I was thinking back then, but like Linkster said, it is not all. Content will keep surfers coming again and attract new surfers so I will list also mirror pages as always has done.

If I remember correct, I was looking that domain more closely because bot couldn't connect to it. To be honest, I had no idea that looking a robots.txt file is a crime, and I'm not that sure about it now either. If SE bots can read it, why not an human eye is not allowed from a site where link was submitted...
Anyway, this was only time I did it. Haven't got any reasons to do it again.

ecchi,
Thanks for a input also, but people decline freesites from a very different reasons. Including if they simply don't like the site. So would that make those people a cheater..? And I'm not only one who don't always send decline messages or questions. So answer to your question, I didn't sent email about this.

JUST A NOTE!
Porn-Hawk.com reviewers or I don't "fuck with your servers", don't cheat, don't steal nothing. Every company I have done business with have said only good things and being happy. I respect my business partners and propably that's why they like also me.

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by wolfie

ecchi,
Thanks for a input also, but people decline freesites from a very different reasons. Including if they simply don't like the site. So would that make those people a cheater..?

If it says in your rules that you will decline a site for a particular reason, then it is not cheating to decline the site. However if you make up a rule after receiving a post, then decline it for a reason that was not in your rules when it was posted, you are a cheater.

So either: It says in your rules that robots.txt files must not be used to stop indexing. Or you did list this site and were only spoofing us when you said "so I deleted this one". Or yes, you are a cheater.

Originally Posted by wolfie

Porn-Hawk.com reviewers or I don't "fuck with your servers"

If you are referring to my comment "Also what the hell were you doing poking around in someone's server looking at non public files (like robots.txt)?" then please note that what glowlite says is very incorrect, thank God he is a webmaster and not a lawyer. You need a warrant from a judge before you can do this. Servers are private property unless you are allowed to look at files on them. Html, Shtml, etc are usually taken as files that you have permission to visit, but other files are not. Calling a file "robots.txt" basically means "no one but search engine spiders are invited to view this file". If whoever made that post to you is feeling petty minded they can use your first post to get you arrested.

[wolfie]

I see your point, but LL owners can't list all possible rules. Using common sence is mostly enaugh to get listed. And also reviewers do errors.

Besides I didn't think the way robots.txt can be used, before I read this thread. Now I see a clear reason why it was used. We don't all get all from moms milk!

Originally Posted by ecchi

However if you make up a rule after receiving a post, then decline it for a reason that was not in your rules when it was posted, you are a cheater.

Yes, I was referring to that. I saw the humour in that too - but "cheater" and "stealing" are strong words in serious business boards.

Originally Posted by ecchi

If you are referring to my comment "Also what the hell were you doing poking around in someone's server looking at non public files (like robots.txt)?"

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by wolfie

I see your point, but LL owners can't list all possible rules. Using common sence is mostly enaugh to get listed.

What you should have done is kept the link until after you got a reply to your post. But what you did do (according to your post) is delete the link then ask if you should delete the link. In other words you saw this as an opportunity to drop a link, then post a "mattinblack" style thread here. That is not "using your common sense", that is "cheating honest webmasters who have already given you a link back".

Originally Posted by Simon

My name is Simon ... and evidently I am a bad man.

You misunderstood what I said, I was not talking about looking at source code (which is how many people learn HTML). I was talking about poking around in someone's computer looking at files you have no legal access to. And despite what you have read here, a computer is private property, you cannot poke around in them without the owner's permission, that is illegal. RawAlex's comment on passwords is also wrong, passwords came about to stop people who were happy to break the law, not as a way of defining private property.

If someone goes out and leaves their front door open, that does not mean you are allowed to wander in. That is still trespassing. It is the same with computers, just because "the door is open" you cannot just wander in and poke around.

Personally I have no problems with anyone looking into files on an open server if they want to take the risk. But I do have a problem with people posting on any open board that this is OK to do this. Because some green newbie will read the post, believe it, do that, and end up in jail. It is simply not fair to post misinformation if that misinformation is likely to get someone else in trouble.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by ecchi

...If someone goes out and leaves their front door open, that does not mean you are allowed to wander in. That is still trespassing. It is the same with computers, just because "the door is open" you cannot just wander in and poke around...

Based on that statement & thinking, who gave you permission to access anything on this (or any other) domain?

Maybe you should tell Google:
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...q=robots%2Etxt

[ecchi]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

Based on that statement & thinking, who gave you permission to access anything on this (or any other) domain?

Yes, technically even HTML pages need permission to view, it is just that it is accepted that they are for public view. But if a page is obviously not for the public (eg if a company puts it's financial report on a web page for the company directors only) they can take out criminal proceedings against anyone visiting it.

A few years ago Google were successfully sued for giving links to non passworded but non public HTML page. If someone as big as Google with the money for real legal muscle could not win, what hope for the rest of us?