For me it doesnt matter I dont want Google in the section that I'm obfuscation.
On 7/13/06, Richard Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, July 7, 2006 10:56 pm, Anas Mughal wrote:
> My URLs are constant. They are not changing.
> All my dynamic pages are indexed nicely on Google.
>
> I agree t
On Fri, July 7, 2006 10:56 pm, Anas Mughal wrote:
> My URLs are constant. They are not changing.
> All my dynamic pages are indexed nicely on Google.
>
> I agree that a computerized screen scrapper could still screen scrap
> most of
> my site. However, a simple script that attempts to bump up the
>
My URLs are constant. They are not changing.
All my dynamic pages are indexed nicely on Google.
I agree that a computerized screen scrapper could still screen scrap most of
my site. However, a simple script that attempts to bump up the identifier of
a resource in a URL, would not work. Here is ex
On Thu, July 6, 2006 12:00 pm, Anas Mughal wrote:
> I have encrypted the values -- not the keys. With this approach, I
> presume I
> have made it harder for anyone trying to screen scrap my data. (It is
> not
> possible to write a script that would loop over my pages.)
Unless you are using an alwa
On Thu, July 6, 2006 11:49 am, Dan McCullough wrote:
> Looking for a good way to obfuscation the name value pairs in a URL,
> so it might be something like
> http://www.domain.com/page=fjdsaflkjdsafkfjdsakfjdsalkfjsda983dsf or
> something like that, I was looking at base64_encode, but was wondering
I have encrypted the values -- not the keys. With this approach, I presume I
have made it harder for anyone trying to screen scrap my data. (It is not
possible to write a script that would loop over my pages.)
Why do you need to encrypt the keys?
--
Anas Mughal
On 7/6/06, Dan McCullough <[EM
6 matches
Mail list logo
