Question about DnF being cached by Google

[LewR]

I was rather surprised to find that a member only site was cached on Google. This was brought to my attention by a person I made comments about quite a while ago. Now he feels it hurts his other business interests. I would not back off my original comments (though heated) but I am really surprised to see that a member only site is indexed and cached by Google.

Is this legal? Is there anything anyone can do about it?

I appreciate your responses,

 

[jberryhill]

Is this legal?

Is what legal? Google? A site operating permitting the site to be crawled? Posting damaging comments about someone in a public forum?

 

[LewR]

Is what legal? Google? A site operating permitting the site to be crawled? Posting damaging comments about someone in a public forum?

No - the question is, if the site is a member only site - do search engines have a right to crawl the site? Or has the site sidestepped the member only access credo?

As I said, I have no regrets as to what I posted - just surprised that someone would come back way down the road asking me to remove my statements (which I refused). I was even more surprised to see it listed as a cached site on Google.

Maybe I should be addressing DnF as a failure on their part? Or does their TOC allow such public posting so that non-members can read them?

Just speaking out loud....

Sorry - meant TOS, not TOC - otherwise know as "Rules"...LOL

 

[Anthony Ng]

Bearing in mind that there are more than 10,000 members here, and signing up (to browse/read) is free if you still remember, I don't see anything wrong with "allowing" search engines to index threads.

 

[Bender]

No - the question is, if the site is a member only site - do search engines have a right to crawl the site?

I don't understand the problem:
you can always tell google (and other robots.txt friendly SE's) to stop crawling your content by simply placing a directive in the robots.txt file.
If google didn't found that directive ...

 

[LewR]

Okay - so the bottom line is - DnF is a public forum not reliant on membership - that all search engines can index and cache - and membership has nothing to do with "keeping conversations in house".

This should prove very interesting....

 

[Anthony Ng]

Okay - so the bottom line is - DnF is a public forum not reliant on membership - that all search engines can index and cache - and membership has nothing to do with "keeping conversations in house".

This should prove very interesting....

I'm not sure how you get there, but I honestly don't think keeping a secret in-house is possible, when that house has 10,000 family members. Moreover, my understanding is that DNForum membership is valuable in that it allows you to not only buy but sell and reach a market that is not comparable by other competing venues.

 

[LewR]

Again - so everything posted at DnF is indexed by the SE's and becomes public domain? That is the simple question.

 

[mark]

from what i have seen on the net the answer is yes. that is why it is usually not a good idea to post specifics on c&d letters recvd. or offers info. this topic has been discussed in other threads previously.

 

[GeorgeK]

The act of indexing something doesn't place it in the 'public domain'. Copyright laws permit 'fair use', while still allowing copyrights to exist.

GoogleBot can, at present, read this forum just like any other person with "guest" access. If the owners want to stop this, a robots.txt entry, or a logged-in requirement would end the GoogleBot crawl.

 

[Domagon]

From what I recall DNForum purposedly allows member only areas to be indexed by Google - there are both pros and cons to this, so I personally really don't care one way or the other that DNForum allows it; one should always assume that any post on a message board that is viewed by others is not going to remain private - will be stored, shared, etc.

Ron

 

[Mr Webname]

If it is written down it will be accessible - anyone can printscreen or otherwise copy content - there is no way to keep it restricted from distribution.

 

[jberryhill]

and membership has nothing to do with "keeping conversations in house".

I'd be fascinated to know what you mean by that.

If you are not consulting privately with your lawyer, your psychiatrist, or your priest, then you are not having a privileged conversation.

As you might recall, I, for one, get cranky at the idea of other people making money off of what I write for free, and intend to be available to read for free.