Added 'noindex' and 'nofollow' in the meta tag #4125
Conversation
|
Does this apply only to rejected teams? |
Does this work?
|
Travis didn't like that. My question is whether something like is needed. |
| <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" /> | ||
| <meta name="og:image" content="{{ website.asset('gratipay.opengraph.png') }}" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is already declared here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry that is a mistake...will fix it now
| @@ -18,7 +18,9 @@ is_team_owner = not user.ANON and team.owner == user.participant.username | |||
| {% block head %} | |||
| <link rel="payment" type="text/html" title="Give weekly gift on Gratipay" | |||
| href="https://gratipay.com/{{ team.slug }}/" /> | |||
| <meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should only do this for rejected teams as pointed out by @mattbk.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about pending teams? We probably don't want those indexed either, now that I think about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't we no indexing too much then? ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More to the point, I don't see why we should do this at all. What problem do you see with someone googling and coming on to a rejected/pending team page?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We'd only index approved teams.
What problem do you see with someone googling and coming on to a rejected/pending team page?
It can make the team look bad: gratipay/project-review#54.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Under the right to be forgotten, teams projects should have control over their own information. We leave it up as an example, which I assume falls under the TOS. An option might be to (somehow) anonymize rejected teams projects...but this seems like an easier solution unless someone yells. It's also possible for the owner to edit most of the information, although the slug remains.
On this note, are we going to re-review teams projects that were previously rejected once Decouple is complete?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I don't agree here. imo rejected a team just means it wasn't compatible with gratipay and what we do here. Nowhere do we reflect on how good the team is or the nature of work they do. How people perceive that rejection is really upto them. Letting people find rejected teams will at least give them the idea about what we do here and what we don't, if nothing else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if you still want to go ahead with this, I'd be fine with that too. Maybe I am the one who doesn't get the clear picture here. ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shrug I don't care either way, it's a policy @whit537 came up with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's also the case the the review ticket is still indexed, quite apart from what we do with the page on Gratipay.
|
I like the new review style. |
|
Alright, rejecting this PR because a) we don't have a strong consensus that we want it, b) it's not done, and c) it's in the way. :-) |
|
Actually it was finished but I was waiting for the final decision before I put it up for review. |
PR for #3846. Not sure if/what test is required for this so I did not put one. If anyone thinks that it is necessary let me know.