Now Im ANNOYED!!

auldblerk

I'll get ripped to shreds if I end up in the local paper; starting to have second thoughts about going BR

jellygirl_2

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

Were you not told in advance that it may appear? However it's now no longer a legal requirement to have it advertised in the local papers although as far as I'm aware it still goes into the London Gazette. Why on earth anyone would choose to is beyond me though.

yes, i knew it would in the London Gazette but I wasnt told the details of my br would be to easily available through a google search. I would have thought it was more like the Insolvency Website where you actually have to go to the site and search from there - its the immediate availability of this info through a google search that bothers me, not that its in the Gazette (although, that it should be there forever I dont think is right or fair - we are treated like criminals).

nervousbankrupt

You could always email the London Gazette to see if their web people can disallow their pages from being indexed by search engines. I'm sure they'd refuse, but it is only adding one line of code (no robots)

It's a requirement that the London Gazette site contains BR details, but it's not a requirement that external search engines index their site!

Some info here if you're not familiar with this kind of thing;
http://www.csgnetwork.com/robots.html

blind-as-a-bat_2

It probebly already is, but robots.txt dont guarentee it wont be indexed, there are certain situations where links, internal or external can 'confuse' a bot.

Im more intrested in exploring if google can index the address of adults and children of the household who are not BR :think:

The las case regarding a BR, human rights and DPA was taken by a BR, he lost, but im wondering if non BR's in the household could have an argument here:think:

blind-as-a-bat_2

Let me expand, my DD posts on face book under her name, a clever !!!!!phile gets her to accept her (him) as a friend.

Now said !!!!!phile would have no idea of here address, but if it ever came out her dad was BR, she mentions my full name in innoscent conversation and bingo, at best he (she) would get a shortlist, at worst the exact address.............

Isn’t technology wonderful?

blind-as-a-bat_2

Second example-

Bob goes BR, two years later he meets Flo, they fall in love and get married.

Problem is, Flo was married before, to an abusive husband, Fred, who finds out she married a BR named Bob.

Now Fred had no Idea Where Flo Was, after a quick search on Google He might, and he has a score to settle with Flo.

The point, While legislation says a BR must be Public knowledge, the reasons for which are so creditors can claim against the BR estate, that theory is 100’s of years old, and does the need for a creditor to know actually outweigh the privacy of the household, in fact, should jo public need to know at all, should anyone that should need to know not have to give reason why they should before the FULL info is given?

nervousbankrupt

Hmm...

The page when you click 'Insolvencies' doesn't have robots in the header, as expected. But when the list of results when doing a search does;

</title><meta name="robots" content="noindex" /></head>

I note they don't have 'nofollow' listed, so the engines will be indexing other pages.

Weirdly, they have chosen to use an Atom feed for search results.

Raphael

Thanks Blind As Bat, there are other examples I can think of (from my personal circusmtances).
As I said before people I meet through my work might google me. If they know when I'm working, and they also find out what my address is, they can easily work out what the best time is to break into my flat!

Also, I sometimes get people making unexpected requests to me whilst I'm working, asking if I'd marry them for instance, they're probably just drunk or have mental health problems, but I wouldn't want those people to be able to find out what my address is via a simple google search.

blind-as-a-bat_2

nervousbankrupt wrote: »

Hmm...

The page when you click 'Insolvencies' doesn't have robots in the header, as expected. But when the list of results when doing a search does;

</title><meta name="robots" content="noindex" /></head>

I note they don't have 'nofollow' listed, so the engines will be indexing other pages.

Weirdly, they have chosen to use an Atom feed for search results.

That meta tag is incorrect, as you say, so will most likely be ignored completly, according to the specs i have read anyway. But there is no 100% compliant spec for robot meta tags, google does appear to follow the following from personal expeariance

It it should be

</title><meta name="robots" content="none"></head>

or

</title><meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"></head>

And to sort of back up the theory, the page i am listed on has the second tag above, correctly written, and im not listed anywhere on google.

But other search engines dont like multiple entries on one line so will do the opposite

Sloppy HTML codeing at the gazzette may be to blame then, they do have a robots.txt file, but that would not stop the page i am on being indexed, and as you say, they have meta robot tags, but in your example it may as well not be there.

WLITC

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

That meta tag is incorrect, as you say, so will most likely be ignored completly, according to the specs i have read anyway. But there is no 100% compliant spec for robot meta tags, google does appear to follow the following from personal expeariance

It it should be

</title><meta name="robots" content="none"></head>

or

</title><meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"></head>

And to sort of back up the theory, the page i am listed on has the second tag above, correctly written, and im not listed anywhere on google.

But other search engines dont like multiple entries on one line so will do the opposite

Sloppy HTML codeing at the gazzette may be to blame then, they do have a robots.txt file, but that would not stop the page i am on being indexed, and as you say, they have meta robot tags, but in your example it may as well not be there.

I'm a little confused. So they have inserted a robots line in their HTML but done it incorrectly? If so, might it not be worth someone contacting the Gazzette's IT people and flagging this up in the hopes that it can be resolved?

Personally I'm not too bothered with it being on the Gazette site, but I also don't really want it coming up in Google search results, especially as I would like to go self employed next year and obviously it won't look to great to prospective customers if they see I was BR.