←back to thread

Faking a JPEG

(www.ty-penguin.org.uk)
343 points todsacerdoti | 4 comments | 11 Jul 25 22:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.677s | source
Show context
tomsmeding ◴[12 Jul 25 07:47 UTC] No.44540147[source]▶
They do have a robots.txt [1] that disallows robot access to the spigot tree (as expected), but removing the /spigot/ part from the URL seems to still lead to Spigot. [2] The /~auj namespace is not disallowed in robots.txt, so even well-intentioned crawlers, if they somehow end up there, can get stuck in the infinite page zoo. That's not very nice.

[1]: https://www.ty-penguin.org.uk/robots.txt

[2]: https://www.ty-penguin.org.uk concatenated with /~auj/cheese (don't want to create links there)

replies(2): >>44540567 #>>44540604 #
1. josephg ◴[12 Jul 25 09:16 UTC] No.44540567[source]▶
> even well-intentioned crawlers, if they somehow end up there, can get stuck in the infinite page zoo. That's not very nice.

So? What duty do web site operators have to be "nice" to people scraping your website?

replies(2): >>44540606 #>>44540718 #
2. gary_0 ◴[12 Jul 25 09:25 UTC] No.44540606[source]▶
The Marginalia search engine or archive.org probably don't deserve such treatment--they're performing a public service that benefits everyone, for free. And it's generally not in one's best interests to serve a bunch of garbage to Google or Bing's crawlers, either.
3. suspended_state ◴[12 Jul 25 09:46 UTC] No.44540718[source]▶
The point is that not every web crawler is out there to scrape websites.
replies(1): >>44541486 #
4. andybak ◴[12 Jul 25 12:06 UTC] No.44541486[source]▶
Unless you define "scrape" to be inherently nefarious - then surely they are? Isn't the definition of a web crawler based on scraping websites?