From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 09 13:27:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 9 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 21491 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 21:27:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LVRK-00087E-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:27:46 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LVRF-00086u-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:27:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LVRA-00086d-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 13:27:36 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:27:36 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: the ethics of the HTML content meta tag Message-ID: <20021209212736.GX6170@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3E0402F0@webmail.uic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E0402F0@webmail.uic.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 3354 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:08:33PM -0600, sbelknap wrote: > It is absolutely not rude to include relevant keywords in the meta > content tag field! > > To the contrary, it is rude (and stupid) to *not* include relevant > keywords. The Loglan site does *not* violate any ethical principle > here. Let me make myself more clear: If you search google on 'lojban', the first hit that comes up for a loglan site is around #60 or so. And it's not much of a loglan site. Essentially, loglan doesn't come up at all. If you search google on 'loglan' the *thirteeth* *hit* is a page that is actually *on* the lojban.org site. This is because google uses a search strategy based on finding 'official' sites for topics. This is largely based on how many places link to a site. This means that if major lojban sites started putting 'loglan' in their meta tags, it could very easily be the case that *most* of the google hits for loglan would be lojban sites, because we're linked to so much more often. I am not interested in a situation like that. Again, if the board wants to over-rule me, that's fine, but I disagree with you, and you are being rude about it. Please stop, because I'm no longer interested in what you have to say. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi