What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
191 Comments
- trammell, on 01/20/2009, -3/+519Also, whitehouse.gov now validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. That's change I can believe in!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.white ... - soogy, on 01/21/2009, -3/+215What the hell? If he had said redoing the website to valid XHTML was his number one priority, I'd have lobbied for him years ago!
- dvsbastard, on 01/21/2009, -2/+193Judging by some of these comments, no one seems to understand the purpose of the "robots.txt" file...
- misterjangles, on 01/21/2009, -12/+150As much as I love to bash GWB, the robots.txt file looks more to me as though they just kept all the old content up on the server. They were trying to keep their search engine results showing the most current content, without removing the old stuff. robots.txt doesn't provide any security. It would be idiotic (even for Bush) to put confidential info in there. There's some stuff in there from before he was president.
Regardless, it's a great metaphor for house-cleaning! - NathanielJ, on 01/21/2009, -4/+131how is robbots formed?
how site get indexed? - Tiabin, on 01/20/2009, -8/+128Probably doesn't really mean much in reality, but it is kind of neat. :)
- MooseOfReason, on 01/21/2009, -4/+120#2111
Disallow: /results/privacy/text
Well, we already knew that, right? - toarn, on 01/21/2009, -3/+96hm, not that surprising..
old robots.txt from whithouse.gov Feb 2, 2001:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010419161754/whitehou ...
.. basically the same - legendxx, on 01/21/2009, -2/+71Digg isn't a site for nerds anymore. Get used to it.
- UnFriendlyFire, on 01/20/2009, -7/+74So you are saying the new website does not disallow anything from the search engines?
- ALiberalMind, on 01/21/2009, -3/+69they need to do way instain programmar who kill thier robbots. becuse these robbots cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a programmar in ar who had kill her three robbots . they are taking the three robbots back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots
- ThirdPrize, on 01/21/2009, -2/+67#463
Disallow: /weapons/of/mass/destruction
So that is why they never found them. - madeingermany, on 01/21/2009, -1/+59Who else immediately went to see what's in http://www.whitehouse.gov/includes/ ? ;)
- tacojohn48, on 01/21/2009, -3/+54http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=robots.txt
- moothemagiccow, on 01/21/2009, -1/+51It looks like any other redesign. They wiped the old content and have nothing that needs to be hidden from indexing. Look at it again in 6 months.
- shthap3ns, on 01/21/2009, -4/+51Err yeah, that's because the doctype is transitional
- strebalicious, on 01/21/2009, -2/+48Digg sure is scrounging for any news related to Obama.
- Hellman109, on 01/21/2009, -3/+46The old robots was just blocking text only versions.
It was nothing nefarious at all. - GawtMilk, on 01/21/2009, -2/+44If Saddam's robots.txt didn't "Disallow: /wmd" Google would have found them years ago
- justjoehere, on 01/21/2009, -2/+39Deleting content has nothing to do with the robots.txt file. The robots.txt file just tells search engines what pages to index and which ones not to. It doesn't remove content.
- DigiDave, on 01/20/2009, -1/+36That's what it would seem like..... at least... for now it doesn't disallow.
Maybe all white house websites start out like this (blank slate) - but the metaphor still rings true. - MWeather, on 01/21/2009, -4/+38"i doubt bush's administration was that crazy"
In a coma for the last 8 years, eh? - WebmastuhB, on 01/21/2009, -4/+36This has little to do with any sort of philosophical difference between the two administrations and mostly to do with a Brand New Website (with little history of content) vrs. an Old Website with years of history and documents.
Obviously a brand new site with no accumulation of old documents will not need a large robots.txt file. - WesleyD, on 01/21/2009, -1/+31*Directory Listing Denied*
*****.. and now my ip has been logged, haha. - inactive, on 01/21/2009, -1/+29I don't think you understand what a "robots.txt" file is used for.
- MoneyShot, on 01/21/2009, -3/+27Want more to gush about? They're also using Creative Commons licensing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright/
- madeingermany, on 01/21/2009, -1/+25Yeah, just javascript and css, like
http://www.whitehouse.gov/includes/functions.js.as ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/includes/eop/style.css - MrViklund, on 01/21/2009, -3/+26This means nothing. Absolutely nothing...
The Bush administration has been there for 8 years. Obama began like, today? - leeesher, on 01/21/2009, -1/+23I'd imagine you're already seeing them /included/ on the other pages. ;)
- yuanzhoulu, on 01/21/2009, -3/+24yeah, it doesn't mean anything.
if you noticed, the website changed. it's possible they just moved all the old crap some place and moved a fresh website in, and weren't paying attention to it.
disallowing search and query scripts from being indexed is completely reasonable for any website fyi. you want content pages indexed, and you don't want google bringing up search result pages (which are dynamic in themselves) of your site but rather content pages of your site. - kevyn, on 01/21/2009, -7/+28So instead of helping, and explaining...you go bashing... great.
- mparker21311, on 01/21/2009, -2/+22Do people actually believe that Obama himself knows what the hell a robots.txt file is?
- doom777, on 01/21/2009, -3/+23Basically, the new one is not as restrictive, so Digg mor. geniouses claim it's a metaphor that the new administration is less restrictive.
- mileswj, on 01/21/2009, -13/+32Too bad XHTML is a waste of time when its rendered as HTML 4, god damn "web designer" noobs.
http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml - MWeather, on 01/21/2009, -3/+21"disallowing search and query scripts from being indexed is completely reasonable for any website fyi"
Is it completely reasonable to disallow 911/heroes? And the other 2400 lines? - censormagnet, on 01/21/2009, -4/+22thats geekishly reassuring
- souldawg, on 01/20/2009, -3/+21good to freshen it up a bit though. Cleaner files and code.
- NathanielJ, on 01/21/2009, -1/+15@simplyintricate: I wonder how you'd even come up with BS like that. You really think that web servers are automatically configured to check for a specific text file in your publicly-viewable webspace and delete files contained within it?
- Nerys, on 01/21/2009, -2/+16part of it is laziness but part of its our social nature. when in a conversational setting which threads like this approximate people tend to "act" conversational ie ask questions as they coalesce in there minds.
This person very likely DID in fact google robots.txt once he left this site or thread. But the "automatic" almost sub conscious reaction was still at the moment to "ask" the question. - hawkeye22, on 01/21/2009, -3/+15The linked article seems to emphasise that XHTML is bad when used with its "correct" content type (application/xhtml+xml). This is only the case because of poor browser compatibility, *cough* Internet Explorer. The author of the article is evidently a huge fan of Internet Explorer - of course he's not going to like any language which can't be properly used with it! Hell, anything which sees that utterly horrific browser stripped from all computers is fine by me.
His comments about how there are no semantic differences between HTML and XHTML are utter crap. Sure, there are no semantic differences if you know what you're doing; if you know which elements to exclude when coding in HTML (font etc.) - but the huge benefit of XHTML is that it has made most of these non-semantic tags deprecated and invalid, thus FORCING you to write in a more semantic manner. He's basically saying "yeah, you can use old HTML because it has all of XHTML's elements!" Yeah, and it has a crapload of other elements which should definitely not be used in modern markup, too.
Oh yeah, I loved your comment about "god damn web designer noobs". How many years have you worked in the industry? Are you going to explain to your client about why you're "going against the grain", and using an backwards version of a technology which they may very well know is widely regarded as "old fashioned" nowadays? Even if a strong case can be made for the revival of HTML, XHTML has become the expected standard in the industry. - StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -3/+15That is fascinating. Although I knew that, in the most part, XHTML gets served up as the wrong content type I hadn't realised how deep the problems ran with that.
I suspect many developers, like myself, fell into using XHTML as the default as we were expecting it to become the mainstream (I've been marking up in XHTML since around 2000, but, obviously, serving it up as text/html) and it's a habit that we never got out of.
Given the general stagnation of webstandards over the last ten years (which isn't a bad thing, BTW - standards shouldn't change every couple of years) there has been little impetus to stop doing things in, essentially, "the wrong way". I've been toying with moving some of my smaller and personal projects to HTML5 which, as the article states in the quote from Håkon Wium Lie (whose book with Bert Bos was practically my bible for learning CSS), is the only realistic option for the masses. I think now is the time to start putting this idea in practice.
Sincere thanks for that link (one of the few times I've actually got something useful from Digg), you should be getting Dugg up more, but the pithy comment really isn't helping your case ;) - alpha88, on 01/21/2009, -2/+14doesn't validate anymore, no attribute "border"
- Otto, on 01/21/2009, -1/+13Actually, what they did was very simple. They just pointed the domain name elsewhere.
Basically, the new website was set up and working probably like a month or more ago. All they did was to shift the domain name to it when the changeover occurred. Voila, all new website, with new files and everything else. - Goda90, on 01/21/2009, -0/+12to save the robots time of course. how would you feel if you tried to look at someone but no one told you that you couldn't look at it?
- coldkill3r, on 01/21/2009, -0/+11Basically it tells a search engine what not to index.
- inactive, on 01/21/2009, -0/+11You forgot to add "... oh, wait."
- newl, on 01/21/2009, -1/+11CSS doesn't validate, nor does the site pass WAI Level 2.
- NathanielJ, on 01/21/2009, -3/+12If people wanted to know they could do a two second Google search and find out.
Ignorance is one thing when the information is hard to find. This information isn't. - endofleg, on 01/21/2009, -3/+12yet people still ask questions easily answered with a simple search.
What IS getting old is people not knowing how to find out information themselves -
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is