Same look, different result. And who cares about your activity? October 31, 2007 10:31 AM Subscribe
This is a two parter. One: there's a disparity in behavior between the search box on the bottom and top of Ask. Two, why isn't 'recent activity' set to nofollow like profile pages?
Why does the 'recent activity' page get indexed by Google? (and other spiders) It's unhelpful on several fronts. The quoted text is but a subsection of the full post anyway, meaning you're only finding things from a persons first few words. The returned result has a plethora of probably unrelated posts on it, making finding what you were searching on less useful. Last and worst, searches on multiple terms that turn up activity are probably less relevant since odds are on those terms being spread across multiple posts. That's great if I want to find out who has written about pumpkin chunkin events AND kitchen knives, not so great if I'm searching for pumpkin carving tips.
Two, the search box on the bottom of the current Ask listings yields a different set of results than on the top - ONLY activity pages. My lightroom search turned up ONLY activity pages at the bottom where the top gets individual posts. I can see how that might be useful (see above) in limited cases, but since it gives no indication what it's doing it's damned confusing.
In thinking (and looking at the additional search options on the Google result page) about it I presume the bottom theoretically searches all of Metafilter where the top limits itself to Ask. Except clearly it's not really all of Metafilter since it doesn't turn up individual results, just recent activity. So perhaps it's just the blue.
Except, confusingly, it isn't since activity spans the sites.
Why does the 'recent activity' page get indexed by Google? (and other spiders) It's unhelpful on several fronts. The quoted text is but a subsection of the full post anyway, meaning you're only finding things from a persons first few words. The returned result has a plethora of probably unrelated posts on it, making finding what you were searching on less useful. Last and worst, searches on multiple terms that turn up activity are probably less relevant since odds are on those terms being spread across multiple posts. That's great if I want to find out who has written about pumpkin chunkin events AND kitchen knives, not so great if I'm searching for pumpkin carving tips.
Two, the search box on the bottom of the current Ask listings yields a different set of results than on the top - ONLY activity pages. My lightroom search turned up ONLY activity pages at the bottom where the top gets individual posts. I can see how that might be useful (see above) in limited cases, but since it gives no indication what it's doing it's damned confusing.
In thinking (and looking at the additional search options on the Google result page) about it I presume the bottom theoretically searches all of Metafilter where the top limits itself to Ask. Except clearly it's not really all of Metafilter since it doesn't turn up individual results, just recent activity. So perhaps it's just the blue.
Except, confusingly, it isn't since activity spans the sites.
Why are the profile pages non-indexed? I'd find it helpful to be able to google for (one-eyed one-horned) people's profile pages.
posted by Kattullus at 11:29 AM on October 31, 2007
posted by Kattullus at 11:29 AM on October 31, 2007
Profile pages not being indexed removes a lot of potential teeth-gnashing about profile moderation and link farming, etc, for one thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:47 AM on October 31, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:47 AM on October 31, 2007
It does make it harder to find someone, though. Didn't there used to be a "search for user" function?
Alternatively, if we know a user's name but not their number, isn't there a static address with the name?
posted by yhbc at 11:55 AM on October 31, 2007
Alternatively, if we know a user's name but not their number, isn't there a static address with the name?
posted by yhbc at 11:55 AM on October 31, 2007
Goddamnit. My profile page used to be the third result for "loquacious" on google. I want my silly little ego-cookie back.
posted by loquacious at 11:56 AM on October 31, 2007
posted by loquacious at 11:56 AM on October 31, 2007
I should just look for these things when they pop into my head, instead of asking about them. A moment's looking confirmst the static address, of course, is in the form "http://www.metafilter.com/username/foo". Simply type in the username you know to go to that user's profile page.
posted by yhbc at 11:58 AM on October 31, 2007
posted by yhbc at 11:58 AM on October 31, 2007
Right on, yhbc. And if you ever forget that URL, you can produce it by previewing a comment—usernames in the thread view will use that rather than the userid URL.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:00 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:00 PM on October 31, 2007
I miss both the old SQL searches. For one thing, you didn't get all these spurious results that Google or Yahoo gives. For another, the results were sorted by date. Also, they worked for code as well as text.
posted by timeistight at 12:10 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by timeistight at 12:10 PM on October 31, 2007
Huh, I never realised that profile pages weren't indexed...
And another genius online revenue stream idea bites the dust.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2007
And another genius online revenue stream idea bites the dust.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 12:39 PM on October 31, 2007
Why are the profile pages non-indexed?
Everyone was freaked out early on that Google was following them around. Even back in like 2001, people demanded that a potential employer searching for their name should not turn up their entire posting history on a site like MetaFilter. This was in the olden days of pre-Dooce and I still get one email a week from a member asking me to change their username or delete their profile because they are going on the job market.
So for heavy users of MeFi, I could see wanting the profile page in Google as a way for people to find you, but a lot of other users are freaked out by it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:17 PM on October 31, 2007
Everyone was freaked out early on that Google was following them around. Even back in like 2001, people demanded that a potential employer searching for their name should not turn up their entire posting history on a site like MetaFilter. This was in the olden days of pre-Dooce and I still get one email a week from a member asking me to change their username or delete their profile because they are going on the job market.
So for heavy users of MeFi, I could see wanting the profile page in Google as a way for people to find you, but a lot of other users are freaked out by it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:17 PM on October 31, 2007
What is the problem? Many Mefites are ashamed of how they behave here? Perhaps the remedy is in repairing the split in their personalities.
Always act as if your parent/spouse/child/ the NSA is watching. The NSA probably is.
posted by Cranberry at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2007
Always act as if your parent/spouse/child/ the NSA is watching. The NSA probably is.
posted by Cranberry at 1:58 PM on October 31, 2007
And for everyone whose Moms are MeFi members: "Hi Mom!"
posted by Lynsey at 2:20 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by Lynsey at 2:20 PM on October 31, 2007
And for everyone whose Moms work for the NSA: "Hi Mom!"
posted by null terminated at 2:22 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by null terminated at 2:22 PM on October 31, 2007
mathowie writes "As for Recent Activity being indexed, I suppose I could put a noindex, follow on the page so Google can keep indexing the threads themselves and follow all the links but ignore the activity page itself."
Oh please do, this behaviour drives me crazy. If you could do the same with the monthly archive pages that would be awesome.
posted by Mitheral at 3:40 PM on October 31, 2007
Oh please do, this behaviour drives me crazy. If you could do the same with the monthly archive pages that would be awesome.
posted by Mitheral at 3:40 PM on October 31, 2007
I thought we already did block indexing on monthly archives, but I'll check again.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:55 PM on October 31, 2007
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:55 PM on October 31, 2007
I miss both the old SQL searches. For one thing, you didn't get all these spurious results that Google or Yahoo gives. For another, the results were sorted by date. Also, they worked for code as well as text.
And, when you search a URL it would pop up if it had already been posted to the front page. One could tell whether or not their link was a double or not.
posted by achmorrison at 4:08 PM on October 31, 2007
And, when you search a URL it would pop up if it had already been posted to the front page. One could tell whether or not their link was a double or not.
posted by achmorrison at 4:08 PM on October 31, 2007
mathowie writes "I thought we already did block indexing on monthly archives, "
*does site search*
Hey, how about that. Looks like it's been too long since my last post.
posted by Mitheral at 4:15 PM on October 31, 2007
*does site search*
Hey, how about that. Looks like it's been too long since my last post.
posted by Mitheral at 4:15 PM on October 31, 2007
Why are the profile pages non-indexed?
We also have nofollow on profile pages there so we don't have to worry about people using their profile pages as a way to SEO links to their favorite MLM scheme or whatever. As it is, if someone wants to link to something that seems like it might be sketchy, we can tell them to put it in their profile where
1. it will be seen
2. it will not get indexed by google as something linked form metafilter
This way we don't have to in any way police profile pages which is good news for all concerned.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:51 PM on October 31, 2007
We also have nofollow on profile pages there so we don't have to worry about people using their profile pages as a way to SEO links to their favorite MLM scheme or whatever. As it is, if someone wants to link to something that seems like it might be sketchy, we can tell them to put it in their profile where
1. it will be seen
2. it will not get indexed by google as something linked form metafilter
This way we don't have to in any way police profile pages which is good news for all concerned.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:51 PM on October 31, 2007
Ummm... I'm not exactly new... and I have no idea what "SEO links to their MLM scheme" means. A little inside baseball. Dumb down please?
posted by team lowkey at 12:24 AM on November 1, 2007
posted by team lowkey at 12:24 AM on November 1, 2007
Search engine optimization/multi-level marketing. Sorry, didn't mean to be obscure.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:23 AM on November 1, 2007
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:23 AM on November 1, 2007
"Search Engine Optimize" their "Multi-Level Marketing" scheme.
posted by zanni at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2007
posted by zanni at 8:11 AM on November 1, 2007
Oops, forgot to preview on a stale page. Sorry for the repeat.
posted by zanni at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2007
posted by zanni at 8:12 AM on November 1, 2007
Thanks. I'm all about the arcane computer acronyms, but I guess I have an innate defense against marketing jargon.
posted by team lowkey at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2007
posted by team lowkey at 1:05 PM on November 1, 2007
Cranberry: "What is the problem? Many Mefites are ashamed of how they behave here? "
Maybe not ashamed, but I'm sure most of us don't want our real name linked to every idiotic uttering we make here. Or maybe that's just me.
posted by dg at 4:29 AM on November 2, 2007
Maybe not ashamed, but I'm sure most of us don't want our real name linked to every idiotic uttering we make here. Or maybe that's just me.
posted by dg at 4:29 AM on November 2, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
As for Recent Activity being indexed, I suppose I could put a noindex, follow on the page so Google can keep indexing the threads themselves and follow all the links but ignore the activity page itself.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:49 AM on October 31, 2007