In article , [email protected]
says...
It will prevent access to the sites but they'll still show up in a
google search, you'll just get a "page not found" error when you try to
follow the link.
In article , [email protected]
says...
It will prevent access to the sites but they'll still show up in a
google search, you'll just get a "page not found" error when you try to
follow the link.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:13:34 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Interesting. Guess I don't go to those sites then, because I don't
recall that error message.
--
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:28 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
wrote,
And it simultaneously counts as a vote to reduce the site's pagerank
for everybody.
In article ,
Cheryl wrote:
Mine lasted 12 years. Hope you get a long-term solution soon!
ObFood: Found a recipe for no-butter, no-flour cookies with peanut
butter, peanuts, and semi-sweet chips in a Martha Stewart holiday cookie
issue (of all places). Going to try it first with an egg,
then with egg-replacer because one of the gluten-free pals also learned
she was allergic to eggs. If it works, I'm going to see how they
freeze, because that will be a good treat for our coffee hour (and an
option for my friend who can't eat dairy). The gluten free shortbread I
made last week was a large hit and the not-gluten-free taste panel said
I could make it again any time but I'm always looking for more options.
--
"Charlotte L. Blackmer" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I highly doubt that egg replacer would work in those cookies. I haven't had
much luck with it.
In news:rec.food.cooking, sf posted on Sun, 13 Feb 2011
00:32:11 -0800 the following:
Seems like the first page is where most of those types of sites are
located. I read an article yesterday saying that Google is thinking of
letting users create their own blacklist of websites so they won't even
show up in your search results. Oddly, they referred to data from some
Wiki search site as an indication that a user blacklist would be useful.
It's odd because to me it seems like a no-brainer that is obvious without
studying data.
I hope they allow this in two ways: Either build your own, private
blacklist, or use a public blacklist which has been built by all Google
users. They should even come out with "clubs" so trusted friends can
build a collective blacklist. Since the people in this group would know
each other, they could trust that their members are really clicking on
useless sites, and not just sites they don't personally like, but which do
contain useful information without looking like an aggregator or
advertising magnet. I'd like to set up some way to filter out sites that
have identical content. I don't mind seeing one aggregator site, but I
don't want to see on the first page eight out of ten results with an
identical news article.
There is definitely a way to configure search engines to do this. They
just have to program them to do it.
Damaeus
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:18:42 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
Google links are already ranked by the number of people who click on
the site's links. So you'd get the same results by letting those same
people conjure up a blacklist since they are the same ones dictating
the white list rankings Google already uses.
-sw
In article ,
Damaeus wrote:
Depends on the newsreader. Looks fine on mine.
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
In news:rec.food.cooking, merryb posted on Wed, 16 Feb
2011 12:18:25 -0800 (PST) the following:
I think I would have been better off if I had not included the story about
how I ended up with the chocolate chips. More people focused on that than
the actual question about how to make semi-sweet chocolate chips more like
milk chocolate candy.
Damaeus
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:08:38 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
wrote,
Stay tuned; Google has recently announced a crackdown on that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks