Cynicus Rex@lemmy.ml to Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 month agoHow to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.bizexternal-linkmessage-square60fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkHow to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.bizCynicus Rex@lemmy.ml to Privacy@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square60fedilink
minus-squaremox@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoThis article lies to the reader, so it earns a -1 from me.
minus-squareCynicus Rex@lemmy.mlOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoLies, as in that it’s not really “blocking” but a mere unenforceable request? If you mean’t something else could you please point it out?
minus-squareDa Bald Eagul@feddit.nllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoThat is what they meant, yes. The title promises a block, completely preventing crawlers from accessing the site. That is not what is delivered.
minus-squareJackbyDev@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoIs it a lie or a simplification for beginners?
minus-squaremox@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoAssuring someone that they have control of something and the safety that comes with it, when in fact they do not, is well outside the realm of a simplification. It’s just plain false. It can even be dangerous.
minus-squarethanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoLie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying “Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them.”
minus-squareJackbyDev@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 month agoIt’s better than saying something like “there’s no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is” though.
minus-squareReversalHatchery@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-21 month agoIs it, though? I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
minus-squarethanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up0·1 month agoMaybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol
This article lies to the reader, so it earns a -1 from me.
Lies, as in that it’s not really “blocking” but a mere unenforceable request? If you mean’t something else could you please point it out?
That is what they meant, yes. The title promises a block, completely preventing crawlers from accessing the site. That is not what is delivered.
Is it a lie or a simplification for beginners?
Assuring someone that they have control of something and the safety that comes with it, when in fact they do not, is well outside the realm of a simplification. It’s just plain false. It can even be dangerous.
Lie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying “Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them.”
It’s better than saying something like “there’s no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is” though.
Is it, though?
I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
Maybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol