|
|
Posted by Steve Pugh on 11/04/84 11:29
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> "Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1129484621.986793.249950@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> What about eyes complaining about sharp colours and strong contrasts?
Strong contrast is good. It aids legibility. Regardless of whether you
adhere to the 1990s voodoo cult that is the web safe palette you should
aim for strong contrats between your foreground and background colours.
"Sharp" colours have nothing to do with using the web safe palette.
There are lots of ugly colour schemes that can be made with the web
safe palette and lots of ugly colour schemes that can be made without
it. And there are lots of nice colour schemes that can be made with it
and lots more that can be made without it.
> > > There is no URL here under the image!
> > >
> > > http://images.google.se/images?q=karta+Italien&hl=sv
> >
> > Yes, that's what you were complaining about.
> >
> > I gave you a clue as to why that might be - your site is https and all
> > the other sites on that list of results are http.
> >
> > You have previously asked for possible problems with using https and
> > ignored the problems given by respondents. Well, here's a new one.
>
> I would not necessarily see it as a problem.
Nor would I. Who cares whether the URL is on that results page or not?
If they actually care, the user can find out which site the image comes
from by clicking on it anyway.
> I can simply write the name of
> the images files which I do not want Google to display.
I assume you're talking about using robots.txt?
What exactly are you worrying about here? The fact that Google indexes
your images or the fact that it doesn't display your page URL on the
results page?
You started off complaining about the URL not being shown but now you
seem to be against the indexing as a whole.
robots.txt is the answer if you want to avoid indexing.
Dropping the pointless[1] https will probably solve the URL display
issue.
> Should Google go on displaying them, I can protect them by password and
> give the password to users only after they have got in touch with me.
Is it really worth it to put more obstacles in the way of your
visitors? It's just a run of the mill map, not the recipe for Coca
Cola. Pick the fights worth fighting.
[1] And yes it is pointless, regardless of your "very important freedom
of speech opinion"; because your opinion doesn't change the facts, and
the fact is that using https for ordinary content is totally, utterly,
pointless; but you'll probably carry on your pig headed, stubborn,
stupid way and insist that your opinion is equally valid[2] and more
correct than the many years worth of experience of all the hundreds of
people who maintain multi-million pound/euro/dollar web sites.
[2] For some reason I'm reminded of the Intelligent Design morons and
their "teach the controversy" scam to sneak creationism into school
science lessons by the back doors. Of course it's important to value
other people's opinions and views even when they're nothing but a bunch
of fairy tales with no basis in hard facts.
Oh that felt good.
Steve
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|