RE: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

Angus McIntyre wrote: > Google just doesn't - as far as I know - use either the > keywords or the description in order to decide how to index > the page, because of the problem of keyword stuffing. Some invisible metadata can be potentially abused by spammers, but not all. It depends on the natu

Re: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

At 14:39 +0900 18.12.2006, Karl Dubost wrote: Le 16 déc. 2006 à 22:24, Angus McIntyre a écrit : (Those are distinct points: there is abusable invisible information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't index META keywords and descriptions). Spotlight on the macintosh indexes those and

Re: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

Le 16 déc. 2006 à 22:24, Angus McIntyre a écrit : (Those are distinct points: there is abusable invisible information, as shown by the fact that Google doesn't index META keywords and descriptions). Just FYI. Spotlight on the macintosh indexes those and it. is. very. practical. when you

RE: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

A key example, which is also an example of Angus' new wiki/initiative idea, is the more-or-less abandoned work done on Structured Blogging. The effort decided to attempt embedding commented out RDF into HTML -- a practice, it was recognized, was doomed to fail because of the copy-paste reusability

Re: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Angus McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > a combination of a microformat-endorsed marking convention and >something like Andy Mabbett's proposed UNAPI might >be a solution here. That's not my proposal; just something I attempted to document h

Re: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Benjamin West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I'd just like to point out that the >main reason for avoiding invisible meta data is because visible data >is updated more often than invisible data. I've yet to see any evidence to support that oft-made assertion. -- And

Re: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

On 12/16/06, Angus McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The FAQ makes it clear that the concern is that invisible markup is associated with spam; because spammers like to hide stuff in their pages that causes a search engine to see them differently from human viewers, any proposed microformat that

RE: Non-visible microformats was [uf-discuss] Principles of Microformats?

At 04:54 -0500 16.12.2006, Mike Schinkel wrote: When I've discussed proposing numerous non-visible Microformats, Tantek (and others) told me "no" (numerous times.) I can dig up some quotes if need be. So I was documenting and clarifying philosophy, not prior deviations from. I had to go back to