ICRA Label update
Duncan Hill
apparently tested the label and say all is working correctly with the
label producing its correct result.
I in turn have retested my label from the website and it now works. Maybe
just a short term glitch at ICRA for the no-result problem or maybe they
have just quietly fixed it after I pointed out the problem. No matter,
mine is working correctly again.
Best wishes
Duncan
webado
linking to has a popup from Tribalfusion, which I find rather
despicable.
I will have to remove my label as it's pretty useless and in fact even
more damaging than not having any. It makes me look like a liar.
Duncan Hill
confirmation coming from the ICRA site, if you want to check your code
against mine the site is on
http://www.casa-arabella.com
Best wishes
Duncan
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
webado
Yours:
<link rel="meta" href="labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml"
title="ICRA labels" />
Mine:
<link rel="meta" href="http://www.rapsohd.org/labels.rdf"
type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels">
Other then the closure of the meta tag due to a different doctype, the
only differnce is that I specify the full path to the labels rather
than a relative one.
So now on to the contents of those labels:
Yours:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:label="http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/contentlabel#"
xmlns:icra="http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
<dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.icra.org" />
<dcterms:issued>2005-9-24</dcterms:issued>
<label:authorityFor>http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#</
label:authorityFor>
</rdf:Description>
<label:Ruleset>
<label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:Hosts>
<label:hostRestriction>casa-arabella.com</
label:hostRestriction>
</label:Hosts>
</label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:hasDefaultLabel rdf:resource="#label_1" />
</label:Ruleset>
<label:ContentLabel rdf:ID="label_1">
<rdfs:comment>Label for all/most of website</rdfs:comment>
<icra:nz>1</icra:nz>
<icra:sz>1</icra:sz>
<icra:vz>1</icra:vz>
<icra:lz>1</icra:lz>
<icra:oz>1</icra:oz>
<icra:cz>1</icra:cz>
<rdfs:label>No nudity; No sexual material; No violence; No
potentially offensive language; No potentially harmful activities; No
user-generated content; </rdfs:label>
</label:ContentLabel>
</rdf:RDF>
Mine:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:label="http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/contentlabel#"
xmlns:icra="http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
<dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.icra.org" />
<dcterms:issued>2007-11-21</dcterms:issued>
<label:authorityFor>http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#</
label:authorityFor>
</rdf:Description>
<label:Ruleset>
<label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:Hosts>
<label:hostRestriction>rapsohd.org</label:hostRestriction>
</label:Hosts>
</label:hasHostRestrictions>
<label:hasDefaultLabel rdf:resource="#label_1" />
</label:Ruleset>
<label:ContentLabel rdf:ID="label_1">
<rdfs:comment>Label for all/most of website</rdfs:comment>
<icra:nz>1</icra:nz>
<icra:sz>1</icra:sz>
<icra:vz>1</icra:vz>
<icra:lz>1</icra:lz>
<icra:oz>1</icra:oz>
<icra:cz>1</icra:cz>
<rdfs:label>No nudity; No sexual material; No violence; No
potentially offensive language; No potentially harmful activities; No
user-generated content; </rdfs:label>
</label:ContentLabel>
</rdf:RDF>
I must be blind.
On Nov 25, 8:32 pm, "Duncan Hill" <dhad...@mndhill.com> wrote:
> That was my biggest worry that the label looked false without the
> confirmation coming from the ICRA site, if you want to check your code
> Best wishes
>
> Duncan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:23:33 -0000, webado <web...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well mine is still not working. What's worse now the page on ICRA I'm
> > linking to has a popup from Tribalfusion, which I find rather
> > despicable.
>
> > I will have to remove my label as it's pretty useless and in fact even
> > more damaging than not having any. It makes me look like a liar.
>
> > On Nov 25, 2:27 pm, "Duncan Hill" <dhad...@mndhill.com> wrote:
> >> I just received an answer from my support query to ICRA, they have
> >> apparently tested the label and say all is working correctly with the
> >> label producing its correct result.
>
> >> I in turn have retested my label from the website and it now works.
> >> Maybe
> >> just a short term glitch at ICRA for the no-result problem or maybe they
> >> have just quietly fixed it after I pointed out the problem. No matter,
> >> mine is working correctly again.
>
> >> Best wishes
>
> >> Duncan
>
> --
> Duncan Hill
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duncan Hill
the small possibilities that I can come up with:
using the absolute page reference possibly leads to an slight change in
the header returned, don't honestly think that is likely though.
Your version of the xml declaration specifies an encoding of "iso-8859-1"
there are two instances of XHTML style tag closing, i.e. ' /> perhaps not
responding as they should with your HTML 4.01 Doctype.
<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
> <dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.icra.org" />
> <dcterms:issued>2005-9-24</dcterms:issued>
> <label:authorityFor>http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03#</
> label:authorityFor>
> </rdf:Description>
<label:Ruleset>
> <label:hasHostRestrictions>
> <label:Hosts>
> <label:hostRestriction>casa-arabella.com</
> label:hostRestriction>
> </label:Hosts>
> </label:hasHostRestrictions>
> <label:hasDefaultLabel rdf:resource="#label_1" />
> </label:Ruleset>
Other than the URI for the page I can't see any other differences, may be
worth a try changing them and see if it gives any result.
Also, Firefox is showing 1 error on the page, comment is that the link
line:
<link rel="meta" href="http://www.rapsohd.org/labels.rdf"
type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels">
gives the respons that it is not allowed here.
I may be wrong but isn't there something that says your Favicon link
should be the last link in the head.
Maybe you could try moving that line above the favicon link.
Good luck, there should be enough there to keep you warm in your freezing
weather, even if it is only the build of temper and frustration.
Duncan
P.S. I haven't snipped the post so if some guru suddenly spots this, they
don't need to look too far for the problem.
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
Duncan Hill
</HEAD> which is throwing your Icra link into nothingness!!!
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:53:30 -0000, webado <web...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
Duncan Hill
webado
Ok, I have to go see my mess LOL
I doubt the contents of the rdf file need to follow my page's doctype.
It's not part of the page after all, it's an external link.
Kind of like the xml sitemap.
Let me go see whats' with that </head> bit... I'd feel very ashamed if
my page were not valid due to that LOL
webado
I wonder if I've had that all along. I regenerated those labels just
the other day and reinserted the code.
How could I miss that? Gaaaaaaa! I usually validate to death ....
Now I have egg on my face LOL
Thanks
webado
Thank you, thank you, thank you! :) :) :)
webado
applicable and not have to pay any fees ? lol
Duncan Hill
Mistress, but that sounds a bit iffy where I come from) without a
validation badge pinned to her jacket!
The way I see it with the ICRA, you can self label yourself for free,
making the necessary declarations etc, the fee comes if you want your
label and thus your site included in the checked database at ICRA. The
checked database entries are just what they say, they have been physically
checked and verified.
I think if your site topic bordered close to the subjects that are
intended to be screened, it would be worth an entry in the checked
database, if the site topic is miles away from risky subjects I think
there is less need and the normal labelling just gives the reassurance.
I reckon the blush when you saw the problem would melt a good bit of snow
for you!!!
Duncan
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
webado
Even using the less controversial "hostess" manages to convey wrong
ideas ;)
As for melting snow, you got that right. A whole truckload of it
meletd and left a big puddle. LOL
webado
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Ir6CB7eg7s8J:www.rapsohd.org/+site:rapsohd.org&hl=fr&ct=clnk&cd=1
This is the cached copy of that site's homepage, as of Nov. 18, so
before I fixed the ICRA label link in what should have been the head
of my page.
I know the link was there all along since times immemorial but it
might have been in no man's land after the </head> and before the
<body> tags.
Look at the source code of the cached copy - it's not even shown. So
we can say Googlebot, when taking the cached snapshot, actually
dropped the wrong tag altogether.
This tells me once again that certain kinds of validation errors (such
as this seemingly benign, yet pretty deadly errors I had) may well
result in parts of content being skipped, simply not being cached,
thus not being indexed.
It's not terribly important for this particular site, since it's been
on hiatus for ages anyway, but in general it should be a wake up call.
Validation is important, every error is an indicator of the chances of
proper indexing of that page. The sneakiest errors are those
seemingly benign ones where we often say pffttt, the validator is
simply confused, looky my stuff is there and it looks OK ...
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
a-ok-site
Great job, but now that the mystery is solved would you recommend ICRA
for a web site without paying to be included in the data base? It
seems to be a very unethical to allow partial inclusion just to bait a
person into paying a fee.
Daniel
Duncan Hill
When I first labeled with ICRA, I think 2005, I don't remember there being
anything at all about a fee paying side. I must admit that I haven't
checked my labels until it came up here.
I was as surprised as anybody when I did go to the site, first the
tribalfusion rubbish that Christina mentioned and then the apparent need
to pay a fee, it took a bit of digging to figure the fee wasn't obligatory
but it still sort of left a bad smell around.
The fee paying part, I am not sure if it is baiting the trap with the free
side, maybe view it as an upgrade opportunity, and especially if your site
could be thought of as possibly having problem subjects.
Example, my hobby, when I get the time is photography, mainly landscape
and wildlife, if I did a site to illustrate that I would only use the free
label service from ICRA because the obvious topics are in no way related
to any of the ICRA taboos. The other side is, years ago I used to make my
living doing wedding and portrait photography, especially family and
children portraits, if I were to build a website for that, with the link
between the children and photography, I would certainly subscribe to the
paid, physically verified service.
The two options seem OK, but it would be much better if the ICRA site
itself covered some of this sort of reasoning, both for the benefit of us
webbies and for the visitors trying to check a site's credentials.
Maybe it is there somewhere but I sure didn't spot it.
Interesting to hear anybody else's ideas.
Duncan
´
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
Duncan Hill
validation of code.
At the same time a little bit alarming, we all make typos and do hurried
updates now and again, yeah! we always validate the updates ...... soon as
I get a chance! but that way you could dump whole chunks of content from
the Google cache if you get a crawl just at that innopportune moment.
A test page might be a good one to try if anybody has the time to
volunteer, maybe just a couple of introduced validation errors to see what
google does with it.
Do they go for the semantics of the code next???
What about XHTML being served as text/html??
That line of dropped code that was genuinely misplaced could be just the
tip of the iceberg, Google have made comments about using valid well
formed code for better results.
Duncan
P.S. 'Mistress' sounds better than 'Hostess', a bit more exciting hinting
at a little bit of intrigue in there!!
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1151 - Release Date:
> 11/25/2007 16:24
>
--
Duncan Hill
(DHadmin)
a-ok-site
I totally agree, and it is weird how the string finally fits the
group...lol. My site is a real mess right now, or I would make the
effort to see what happens with the errors. However, to get "valid"
results the experiment they should be run on a new url with new code.
If we try it on existing sites, we cannot be sure that the results are
not being affected by an extraneous variable. Ideally we should
create at least two sites an experimental site where the errors occur
and a control site identical except for the errors.
I have also noticed that link preference is one of the top tools that
Google uses in ranking pages. After improving my clickability (mainly
getting users to search and click), I have seen that my rankings have
improved dramatically and in a very short time. I think two of the
main variables that Google uses is validation and link preference with
external links, key words, and such having little or no influence on
search rank. Two weeks ago my main site was on page three of the
results now it is #1 with the other domains being 2nd and third
http://www.google.com/search?q=a-ok-site&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1.
Christina,
If you need help with my version of English (OK redneck), give me a
shout. By the way Webado does not translate into redneck, maybe
redneck Ebonics.....lol.
Daniel
Daniel
On Nov 26, 1:54 pm, "Duncan Hill" <dhad...@mndhill.com> wrote:
> That is real interesting, if anything it is great validation for the
> validation of code.
> At the same time a little bit alarming, we all make typos and do hurried
> updates now and again, yeah! we always validate the updates ...... soon as
> I get a chance! but that way you could dump whole chunks of content from
> the Google cache if you get a crawl just at that innopportune moment.
>
> A test page might be a good one to try if anybody has the time to
> volunteer, maybe just a couple of introduced validation errors to see what
> google does with it.
> Do they go for the semantics of the code next???
> What about XHTML being served as text/html??
>
> That line of dropped code that was genuinely misplaced could be just the
> tip of the iceberg, Google have made comments about using valid well
> formed code for better results.
>
> Duncan
>
> P.S. 'Mistress' sounds better than 'Hostess', a bit more exciting hinting
> at a little bit of intrigue in there!!
>
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:05:48 -0000, webado <web...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You know what's very interesting now?
>
Duncan Hill
it just happens that there is a translator for it ..
http://www.writtenhumor.com/ebonics.html
Google is your friend, which is probably just as well, Christina may not
be at this point in time!! LOL
The test site is a nice thought for a project, I am in a bit of a silly
season at the minute but once things quieten down, maybe we could try and
organise a little collaborative test unless somebody has time to try on
their own.
That is great news about your Google rank. I have heard before about the
keywords not carrying a great deal of weight and only realistic as they
often bear no relationship to the actual content.
Duncan
webado
Ebonics ?
Nah, it was meant to be southern twang ... Just because I am northern
LOL
On 26 nov, 15:21, a-ok-site <a.ok.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duncan,
>
> I totally agree, and it is weird how the string finally fits the
> group...lol. My site is a real mess right now, or I would make the
> effort to see what happens with the errors. However, to get "valid"
> results the experiment they should be run on a new url with new code.
> If we try it on existing sites, we cannot be sure that the results are
> not being affected by an extraneous variable. Ideally we should
> create at least two sites an experimental site where the errors occur
> and a control site identical except for the errors.
>
> I have also noticed that link preference is one of the top tools that
> Google uses in ranking pages. After improving my clickability (mainly
> getting users to search and click), I have seen that my rankings have
> improved dramatically and in a very short time. I think two of the
> main variables that Google uses is validation and link preference with
> external links, key words, and such having little or no influence on
> search rank. Two weeks ago my main site was on page three of the
a-ok-site
Just giving you a hard time.
Daniel
a-ok-site
in my head....lol.
Daniel
webado
> > > results now it is #1 with the other domains being 2nd and thirdhttp://www.google.com/search?q=a-ok-site&rls= com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8....
--
www.webado.net
Webhosting and Design