Cynicus Rex to [email protected]English • 3 months agoHow to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.bizexternal-linkmessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up1111arrow-down132
arrow-up179arrow-down1external-linkHow to block AI Crawler Bots using robots.txt filewww.cyberciti.bizCynicus Rex to [email protected]English • 3 months agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squareCynicus RexOPlinkfedilink-1•edit-23 months agoLies, as in that it’s not really “blocking” but a mere unenforceable request? If you meant something else could you please point it out?
minus-squareDa Bald Eagullinkfedilink37•3 months 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink13•3 months agoLie. Or at best, dangerously wrong. Like saying “Crosswalks make cars incapable of harming pedestrians who stay within them.”
minus-squareJackbyDevlinkfedilinkEnglish-4•3 months agoIt’s better than saying something like “there’s no point in robots.txt because bots can disobey is” though.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•3 months agoMaybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•edit-23 months agoIs it, though? I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
minus-squaremoxlinkfedilink4•3 months 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.
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 meant 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?
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.
Maybe? But it’s not like that’s the only alternative thing to say, lol
Is it, though?
I mean, robots.txt is the Do Not Track of the opposite side of the connection.
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.
the word disallow is right there