- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:01:56 +0200
- To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
- CC: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@gmail.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, public-lod@w3.org
Just one more comment: such a list could be useful if it's published by a well identified person or group who can be contacted in case of disagreement or to get off the list. Le 23/06/2011 08:27, Antoine Zimmermann a écrit : > Le 22/06/2011 23:49, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : >> On 21 Jun 2011, at 10:44, Martin Hepp wrote: >>> PS: I will not release the IP ranges from which the trouble >>> originated, but rest assured, there were top research institutions >>> among them. >> >> The right answer is: name and shame. That is the way to teach them. >> >> Like Karl said, we should collect information about abusive crawlers >> so that site operators can defend themselves. It won't be *that* hard >> to research and collect the IP ranges of offending universities. >> >> I started a list here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Bad_Crawlers > > What's the use of this list? > Assume it stays empty, as you hope. What's the use? > Assume it gets filled with names: so what? It does not prove these > crawlers are bad. The authors of the crawlers can just remove themselves > from the list. If a crawler is on the list, chances are that nobody > would notice anyway, especially not the kind of people that Martin is > defending in his email. If a crawler is put to the list because it is > bad and measures are taken, what happens when the crawler get fixed and > become polite? And what if measures are taken while the crawler was not > bad at all to start with? > Surely, this list is utterly useless. > > Maybe you can keep the page to describe what are the problems that bad > crawlers create and what are the measures that publishers can take to > overcome problematic situation. > > > AZ > > >> >> The list is currently empty. I hope it stays that way. >> >> Thank you all, Richard > >
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 07:02:28 UTC