You are not logged in.
> ubernostrum wrote:
> Then there’s the pragmatist camp, which argues that for some cases a new window is the best solution; for example, when presenting a user with a dialog box which relates to the current page but should not replace it (many e-commerce confirmation dialogs fit this model).
Ecmascript is your tool then, when you really need it. But there are very, very, very few cases.
> And IIRC
target was deprecated in HTML because it’s considered part of the behavior layer, not the content layer, and so is more appropriately handled in the DOM.
A more elegant way to say it, yes :)
> Also, it’s still present in the Frameset versions of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0.
You know that frames are instruments of the Evil One, don’t you ? ;->
Something that might also be a very good idea is to include the ability to have a whitelist of acceptable domains or commenters that wouldn’t get the rel=“nofollow” appended to their links.
Last edited by compooter (2005-01-19 21:28:06)
Hmm, well you could link to Google’s blog entry near your comment form “your spam won’t work here”, might keep away some of the non-automated spammers.
My email address has changed recently. If you need to contact me, use the forum contact form.
Trust me, the cheap-ass software that the spammers are using is not going to be considerate enough to read that text or check anything else on your page. The only motivation they have is to spam as many systems as possible in as little time.
The situation that created comment spam has to do with the fact that getting links — no matter where or how — works to improve your rankings in search engines. Take away that bone, and (so the theory goes) they’ll stop chasing.
Incidentally, the nofollow technique is causing quite a stir in the SEO world.
(seochat posters are generally white-hat, but it’s a popular lurking place for black-hat spammer types)
More reactions linked here.
Last edited by zem (2005-01-20 00:39:44)
sorry about the “echos” ; )
Yeah… I fear you are right Jeremie. I just figured that since spammer bots look for a posting area, they might look for a clear signal that their spam won’t gets posted on a certain site. Problem is that regardless of any tag, if the bot found your site, how much more work is it to make a fruitless post. Even if that post is fruiless, it is probably not much work at all
I really do think you are right… except for maybe large blogging sites with managed software (like Typepad) the change in behaviour will be really slow.
One thing I’ve been pondering is… how many bots know Textile?