(Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>)m>): On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 08:34, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote: I forgot that even exists... That's on the old server, which I have no control over. It should be removed entirely, or at least the DNS pointed at the new server.

On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 08:34, Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz wrote: I forgot that even exists... That's on the old server, which I have no control over. It should be removed entirely, or at least the DNS pointed at the new server. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I removed the VirtualHost entry for that name from the old server, so surfers going to that name will end up at www.bomis.com. I'm not quite sure why that is... The Apache setup on that machine is a little strange. do you want the name test.wikipedia.com pointed to the new server?

It seems sensible that anyone who visits http://test.wikipedia.com/* be forwarded to http://www.wikipedia.org/*, rather than to the Bomis homepage, which may astonish them.

On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 18:12, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: Well, not exactly. Viewing pages is done with /wiki/Name, which is very distinct from other operations at /w/wiki.phtml?title=Name&otherstuff. The primary advantage of this is being able to block off all non-view operations from web search indexing in robots.txt. EXCEPT FOR FRICKING GOOGLE GRRRRGH. :) But I'm sure it's just a misunderstanding. :) -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 19:58, Nick Reinking wrote: I didn't say it was being cached, that its content could be word-searched, or that it had been spidered through to other pages. I said it was *indexed*. Now, maybe Google uses some word other than "indexed" to mean "contained in a database of links which are shown to users when they search for words contained in the link". I'll buy that. Maybe the word they use is "florble". In that case, the page is being florbled despite our best efforts to stop it from being florbled. Is there any way we can tell google not to florble pages that are explicitly excluded by our robots.txt file so that people will stop complaining to *us* about google's overzealous florbling? Hypothetically we could jimmy the page to not produce edit links if the user agent is googlebot, but that would be very annoying for several reasons: 1) The google-cached page would be missing those links. 2) This would screw with page caching. Google hits a lot of pages, and we'd have to either not cache any of its hits or be very careful in coding around it. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

I didn't say it was being cached, that its content could be word-searched, or that it had been spidered through to other pages. I said it was *indexed*. Now, maybe Google uses some word other than "indexed" to mean "contained in a database of links which are shown to users when they search for words contained in the link". I'll buy that. Maybe the word they use is "florble". In that case, the page is being florbled despite our best efforts to stop it from being florbled. Is there any way we can tell google not to florble pages that are explicitly excluded by our robots.txt file so that people will stop complaining to *us* about google's overzealous florbling?

Hypothetically we could jimmy the page to not produce edit links if the user agent is googlebot, but that would be very annoying for several reasons: 1) The google-cached page would be missing those links. 2) This would screw with page caching. Google hits a lot of pages, and we'd have to either not cache any of its hits or be very careful in coding around it.

On the other hand, it would break whatever tools already depend on the old URLs, like Magnus's offline reader, etc.