Nokia6600

[wilderness]

66.94.233.** - - [29/Nov/2006:23:36:33 -0800] "GET /index.wml HTTP/1.1" 404 - "-" "Nokia6600/1.0 (4.09.1) SymbianOS/7.0s Series60/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0"

thirty one pages on each website, looking for files that are apprently related to cell phones.
All with either wml or xhtml extensions of which my websites have ZILCH.

[thetrasher]

Same UA pulled my default page two times within one second:

66.94.233.nn - - [01/Dec/2006:**:**:15 +0100] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 ***** "-"
"Nokia6600/1.0 (4.09.1) SymbianOS/7.0s Series60/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0"
66.94.233.nn - - [01/Dec/2006:**:**:15 +0100] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 ***** "-"
"Nokia6600/1.0 (4.09.1) SymbianOS/7.0s Series60/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.0"

Reverse DNS: test06.wap.search.scd.yahoo.com
They should pay us for beta testing.

[wilderness]

thrasher,
Same IP and UA returned the next day after the inital visit and grabbed same pages as your referece.

[GaryK]

What really bothers me about these situations is if Yahoo, MSN and the others would simply announce a plan to do beta testing, make the UAs or IPs known, and abide by robots.txt, I'm sure we'd all be happy to work with them to help improve web searches. After all it's in our own best interest to make it easier for people to find us.

What can we do as a group to drive home the point that we're willing to assist in beta tests so long as we're shown some respect?

[wilderness]

What can we do as a group to drive home the point that we're willing to assist in beta tests so long as we're shown some respect?

Not much Gary, outside the foot stomping and tantrums we have in forum 11 :)

The primary problem is in the use of the word "we"?
1) We're NOT a collective group, all members of the Blah, Blah Blah Org and here are our acceptable guidelines.
2) We each (as webmasters) have different acceptable bots and/or IP ranges.
3) It would surprise me if "we" as a collective group of participants of forum 11 could muster up ten items that we all agree on.

Don

[GaryK]

Sadly you're probably right Don. I can be a hopeless optimist at times.

[volatilegx]

> 3) It would surprise me if "we" as a collective group of participants of forum 11 could muster up ten items that we all agree on.

I love it, Don. I needed that laugh today -- thanks.

[jdMorgan]

I disagree. :)

(Now, to make this post worthwhile, I'm also seeing the same UA and IPs discussed above.)

Jim

[wilderness]

I disagree.

Jim,
Without a quote you've left me wondering as to what exactly you disagree with :)
1) It wasn't funny?
2) We couldn't muster ten bots or IP ranges as a group?

The forum doesn't have the activitiy or participants that one had (I know old rant). The regular participants here are a rather small group, although many long timers have frequently contributed that they are on lurk mode.

I'm wondering if Webmaster World has the capability to provide Forum #11 stats without identifying particpants?

1) How many participants of Forum #11 have participated in more than 50 threads in the past year?

2) How many participants of Forum #11 have participated in more than 25 threads in the past year?

3) How many participants of Forum #11 have participated in more than 10 threads in the past year?

IMO, before we could assign some credibility to any poll of agreement, we must first locate the credibility of the forum.

Don

[jdMorgan]

Sorry Don,

It was a flip remark intended as a joke, and not worth diverting the thread.

It would surprise me if "we" as a collective group of participants of forum 11 could muster up ten items that we all agree on.

I disagree. :)

This was reminiscent of the logic contradiction that Capt. James T. Kirk used to blow up a robotic enemy when he told it, "I am lying." It tried to work out whether his statement was true for a while, got stuck in the inherent logic loop, overheated, and then blew up.

I think most folks here would agree that any user-agent not directly-controlled by human typing or link-clicking should fetch and honor robots.txt, though. :)

Jim

[wilderness]

I think most folks here would agree that any user-agent not directly-controlled by human typing or link-clicking should fetch and honor robots.txt, though.

larbin, java and nutch may make four?

UA's beginning with "Web" possibly five

some of the UA's with syntax errors might raise the number to 8 or 9

Harvest
Wget
Library and few others and 10 is not so far fetched.

We're still however left without credibility.

[gregbo]

What can we do as a group to drive home the point that we're willing to assist in beta tests so long as we're shown some respect?

Sounds like a good future conference topic. It addresses a real problem for both webmasters and search engines.

[GaryK]

Do any of the SE reps who attend these conferences have the clout to go back to the corporate mothership and convince the suits that things need to change? Sadly I doubt it. My evidence? Look at what we were promised by Yahoo the last time I brought this issue up. We got lots of lip service and a slew of new rogue bots.

[gregbo]

I was thinking this is more of the type of issue that can be brought directly to engineers. No need to worry suits.