avarab wrote:

INVALID, google has a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link on every search
result, I suggest you use it.

neubau wrote:

Snape kills dumbledore.

logixoul wrote:

INVALID, google has a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link on every search result, I

suggest you use it.

How's a computer algorithm supposed to recognize something as abstract as plot spoilers?
No, users should cope with it. Please, before replying, think whether it's really
possible a satiable antispoil algorithm in Google to work.

Snape kills dumbledore.

No comment...

avarab wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

INVALID, google has a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" link on every search

result, I

suggest you use it.

How's a computer algorithm supposed to recognize something as abstract as plot

spoilers?

No, users should cope with it. Please, before replying, think whether it's

really

possible a satiable antispoil algorithm in Google to work.

Well that's something for the google people to work out, not us.

logixoul wrote:

I don't agree, but I have nothing else to say. I used the method you recommended.

robchur wrote:

It is not technically possible for us to prevent Google from indexing spoilers -
how is the software supposed to know what is a spoiler and what isn't?

logixoul wrote:

It is not technically possible for us to prevent Google from indexing spoilers -

how is the software supposed to know what is a spoiler and what isn't?

I wrote that above. For example, we surround spoiling parts with <spoiler></spoiler> manually. As I
said, IMO it's humans' job to tell spoilers apart from regular text.

avarab wrote:

See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Dec/0009.html

robchur wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

It is not technically possible for us to prevent Google from indexing

spoilers -

how is the software supposed to know what is a spoiler and what isn't?

I wrote that above. For example, we surround spoiling parts with

<spoiler></spoiler> manually. As I

said, IMO it's humans' job to tell spoilers apart from regular text.

So? Surround something in those tags either at the wikitext or XHTML level, and
you'll find it's ignored at the former and rejected as invalid XHTML at the
latter. And how does that stop GoogleBot seeing it?

logixoul wrote:

(In reply to comment #9)

(In reply to comment #7)

It is not technically possible for us to prevent Google from indexing

spoilers -

how is the software supposed to know what is a spoiler and what isn't?

I wrote that above. For example, we surround spoiling parts with

<spoiler></spoiler> manually. As I

said, IMO it's humans' job to tell spoilers apart from regular text.

So? Surround something in those tags either at the wikitext or XHTML level, and
you'll find it's ignored at the former and rejected as invalid XHTML at the
latter. And how does that stop GoogleBot seeing it?

I'm sorry, apparently I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that some markup
analogous to <spoiler></spoiler> has to be added to the wikicode specs, meaning that
MediaWiki itself should be changed.
(In reply to comment #8)

See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Dec/0009.html

Now that I read this, I realized that indeed such a thing would be much better off in
general XHTML. However, as seen at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Dec/0021.html
the proposal seems to have been declined. I'm probably going to argue with them,
because I don't agree with some of their points. For now I am convinced that the
INVALID resolution fits this bug.