![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 48 to 72 of 78. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 16:06:22
In reply to how openness helps ME » alexandra_k, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 20:12:22
Hey.
I've been thinking about what you said...And...
I wouldn't want to take that away from you.
If I could foster that attitude...
Security / privacy probably wouldn't be such a problem to me (aside from the stuff I have already posted of course).
I think I go more for the
Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
strategy.Sigh.
I am fairly reactive IRL...
I guess that comes through in my posting style...But I would like to be different...
And I suppose practice is the only way...
Posted by pseudoname on January 5, 2006, at 17:10:53
In reply to Re: how openness helps ME » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 16:06:22
> I think I go more for the
> Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
strategyLOL! Two responses:
(1) That strategy is what I do in my wirebound journal. But even it makes me nervous. Just TODAY, I started to write, "My new dose increase is making me dopey. I probably shouldn't drive." But I was afraid to write it in case I had an accident and later some lawyer or cop searched my notebook! Oh, funny. After a couple minutes I did put it in ... because the journal is worthless to me unless I can put any & every thought into it. If that's how you use Babble, I can seriously empathize with your situation. (Although, I have to say again, I don't think you've posted anything you can get SUED for ;-)
(2) You say lots that seems sensible to me. And your sensible output is not merely a function of overall volume.
> I am fairly reactive IRL...
What do you mean?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:01:56
In reply to say lots amp; see what sticks » alexandra_k, posted by pseudoname on January 5, 2006, at 17:10:53
> > I think I go more for the
> > Say lots and you are bound to hit upon something sensible sooner or later
> strategy> LOL!
:-)
> ...After a couple minutes I did put it in ... because the journal is worthless to me unless I can put any & every thought into it. If that's how you use Babble, I can seriously empathize with your situation.Yeah. That is fairly much how I use Babble. Not that I think Babble would be worthless to me if I did not use Babble like that (I could use Babble the way you do, for example). Maybe... I am rather foolish for using Babble the way I do...
But for me...
Shame.
Shame is a big thing for me. Shame that I have certain thoughts / feelings, shame that I do certain things. And rationally I know I *shouldn't* be ashamed. Or that a little bit of shame ain't gonna kill me or whatever. But emotionally... Well...
And when I post freely about my thoughts / feelings / rambellings / ravings / actions...
And people don't seem to cringe away from me in disgust...
Well... That is healing to me.
And helps me feel less ashamed.
But yeah...
That involves posting fairly personal things...
And that gives any one reading...
The power to hurt me very much :-(> (Although, I have to say again, I don't think you've posted anything you can get SUED for ;-)
Ah. I do not live in a litigious (however you spell that) society...
:-)
> (2) You say lots that seems sensible to me. And your sensible output is not merely a function of overall volume.Thanks. Though... I do believe that overall volume helps... But sometimes I worry about spamming the boards, yes...
> > I am fairly reactive IRL...
> What do you mean?Ideas / thoughts / feelings / behavings come fast. As fast and intense responses. I can bang out a fairly lengthy and detailed post at a rather rapid rate of knotts...
My academic writing is the same. I can bang out a fairly lengthy essay in a single night if I get into it.
Of course... In the latter context...
It must be edited and revised and reworked a little and structured etc etc etc.
And it only really comes together as a result of that latter process which is a fairly steady and concentrated effort...But the flurry...
Well...
That is how I post much of the time.
And...
It leads to stupid errors and ambigous phrasings and phrasings that aren't optimally sensitive at times etc etc.There must be a middle way ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:04:41
In reply to Re: say lots amp; see what sticks » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 18:01:56
that is why i like philosophy...
it teaches me to be careful.
to be careful with what i say.
though i am not optimally careful much of the time...
but i think philosophers are supposed to be fairly steady and thoughtful by nature...
rather than as excitable as me...
(what is the difference between a philosopher and a raving loony??? perhaps...)
;-)
but maybe i'll learn to calm down :-)
i do hope so...
:-)
Posted by JenStar on January 5, 2006, at 20:12:11
In reply to IMHO, posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 4:10:30
this is a good point. I forgot that I only found babble in the first place by googling "Lexapro issues" and found tons of "Dr. Bob" site posts. That lead me in...I got hooked...and here I am. Ok, so I think we SHOULD still be google-able. HOpefully it will help newcomers find this site.
JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
In reply to Re: IMHO » NikkiT2, posted by JenStar on January 5, 2006, at 20:12:11
> I think we SHOULD still be google-able.
er...
not sure whether that was just a general point or a response to my idea...
but the idea was that the site still be linked to google...
but people would need to register in order to READ the google links...
Posted by jamestheyonger on January 6, 2006, at 0:14:50
In reply to Re: IMHO » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
> but people would need to register in order to READ the google links...
>I am suggesting a variation on this, the archives are searchable and viewable without registration. To post and see the current board you have the register.
j
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 0:24:55
In reply to Re: IMHO, posted by jamestheyonger on January 6, 2006, at 0:14:50
why?
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2006, at 2:50:54
In reply to Re: Googleability » Dr. Bob, posted by pseudoname on January 4, 2006, at 8:50:17
> Google – regular Google that currently indexes Babble – uses the same approach as Google Scholar with many non-scholarly pay-access sites.
Really? I didn't know that. Can you give me an example?
Bob
Posted by JenStar on January 6, 2006, at 10:14:58
In reply to Re: IMHO » JenStar, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 20:40:13
Yeah, at first I thought it would be good to make people register first to read. But the way I found babble was by reading FIRST, then registering. I "lurked" around a while before my first post, but I found the site very heartening and supportive before I even made my first post.
I thought about that a while, and weighed it against privacy issues. So I guess I think it SHOULD all be visible, in the hopes that some other lost souls might find their way here. :)
JenStar
Posted by AuntieMel on January 6, 2006, at 16:06:48
In reply to Re: AuntieMel weighs in...., posted by jamestheyonger on January 5, 2006, at 12:34:56
Possibly, though not reading the current stuff probably would have been a problem.
But - lots of folks here have less problem with having the current stuff googleable than the archives.
Posted by pseudoname on January 6, 2006, at 16:26:04
In reply to Re: Googleability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2006, at 2:50:54
These are too easy to find when I *don't* want them, but this afternoon I can't find any. They may seem more frequent because they're frustrating.
But one technique for doing that -- for allowing Google to see & index web pages while keeping others out -- is explained here:
http://www.bu.edu/webcentral/learning/restrict/search.html
--and reassures me that I wasn't just imagining it ;-)That technique uses an .htaccess file and code something like
<limit GET POST>
deny from all
allow from google.com
require valid-user
</limit>There are apparently other techniques that depend on the degree of access the site owner has to the server, I guess.
I'll keep looking for non-publishing-related examples. (I'm also ignoring adult-content sites...)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 16:52:36
In reply to Re: AuntieMel weighs in.... » jamestheyonger, posted by AuntieMel on January 6, 2006, at 16:06:48
> But - lots of folks here have less problem with having the current stuff googleable than the archives.
brilliant. that is just brilliant.
yeah.
how about letting anyone read the boards but only members read archives?????
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 16:53:09
In reply to Re: AuntieMel weighs in.... » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 16:52:36
or archives can be linked to google... but have to be a member to view...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 6, 2006, at 16:55:25
In reply to Re: IMHO » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on January 6, 2006, at 10:14:58
hmm.
i guess i found dr-bob's homepage first. from there i found the link to the boards...
and i started reading the boards.
but what would i have done if i had to join up to view teh boards??
i would have joined up.
yeah.
but i am not a lurker by nature...
i think i read maybe 5 or 6 posts to get the general gist before joining and posting. but i did have a specific query...
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2006, at 3:25:17
In reply to searchable restricted access sites » Dr. Bob, posted by pseudoname on January 6, 2006, at 16:26:04
> one technique for doing that -- for allowing Google to see & index web pages while keeping others out -- is explained here:
> http://www.bu.edu/webcentral/learning/restrict/search.htmlHmm, interesting, thanks. I think that might be doable. But I think it would require a new authentication process. And other search engines would need to be listed...
But I also think the main issue would be that people might be turned off if they had to register even to look around. Especially since registration here can be a hassle. While at the same time, if someone really wanted to be nosy, nothing would stop them.
But I still think a non-Googleable board might be interesting. Would a board like that need to be restricted to registered members, too? Just keeping Google out would be easier...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 7, 2006, at 16:47:38
In reply to Re: searchability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2006, at 3:25:17
>I think that might be doable.
:-)
> But I think it would require a new authentication process.
Do you mean we would all need to go through registration again? You wanted us to do that anyways - right?
> But I also think the main issue would be that people might be turned off if they had to register even to look around.
Well... Maybe... But maybe if they keep on getting those google hits they will get curiouser and curiouser.
Maybe... It would make sense to have the medication and withdrawal boards (which tend to be for information rather than support) still readable to non-members?
Maybe?
(I don't go over there very often so excuse me if I'm wrong with that...)
> Especially since registration here can be a hassle.
I didn't think it was all THAT bad...
> While at the same time, if someone really wanted to be nosy, nothing would stop them.
Yeah.
> But I still think a non-Googleable board might be interesting. Would a board like that need to be restricted to registered members, too? Just keeping Google out would be easier...I guess it wouldn't *need* to be...
But I'd prefer it :-)Thanks for thinking about this.
Posted by pseudoname on January 8, 2006, at 10:46:28
In reply to Re: searchability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2006, at 3:25:17
> But I still think a non-Googleable board might be interesting. Would a board like that need to be restricted to registered members, too?
Not at all. You can hide any page from Google & other search engines while keeping it open to everybody else with the Robots Exclusion Protocol -- a "robots.txt" file.
A couple pages explaining it begin here:
http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/exclusion-user.htmlYou need root-level access to the dr-bob.org domain, which I assume you have.
I'm pretty sure, however, that *any* page's URL can still appear in a Google search-results list if a link to that page is on any other web page. If you hide msg #123, for example, with your robots.txt file, I can still put a link to that msg on my home page, which is indexed by Google. If I put the word "opioids" as the link's hypertext, then Google may return the URL of msg #123 in the results-list for an "opioids" search. It still won't report what's actually on page #123, but Google will report that such a URL exists and that it probably has something to do with opioids.
This is on reason why you sometimes see just a link, with no snippets, in a Google results list.
I don't think there's a way to block that type of listing of a hidden page, although I don't know. For Babble posts, it probably wouldn't be a big problem.
Another way any author can hide an individual page is to put meta tags in its html header:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Google obeys this instruction, but apparently many search engines don't.
Posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 1:52:07
In reply to blocking ONLY search-engines » Dr. Bob, posted by pseudoname on January 8, 2006, at 10:46:28
Joining this discussion way way late and too impatient to read thru the many posts, so let me make assumptions.
I assume people want to raise the visibility of Babble in search engines. There also seems to be some "tension" (in the pulling sense, not the nervous sense) between be protective of vets and being open to newbies.
There **are** technical means of addressing some of these points.
1) Dr. Bob -- do you use a robots.txt file and/or robots meta tags? You can employ both of these techniques to indicate to good search engine spiders (like Google's) that certain pages should be indexed, certain pages should not have their linked pages indexed, certain pages should never be indexed. You can use the robots.txt file to indicate directories on your server that should or should not be traversed.
2) Reducing the pages indexed can increase the value of pages that do get indexed. Having actual discussions cataloged by Google **may** be of value to certain people at certain times, but you already provide your own means of accessing archives, both through search and through browsing. Add that to the report by many that they "lurk" here for a while before getting really involved and what becomes clearer is just how important the Babble home page is and how important the home pages of the different forums are. The subjects of messages appearing on those top-level pages is probably enough to get keywords like medication names associated with this site. The discussions behind the subjects may add very little value to the hit placement of Babble in Google.
3) Conducting a poll or survey of the search terms that people use to find sites like Babble is one of the most important things that can be done to raise Babble's relevance for search engines. The most typical, common, popular terms that fit with the mission of the site need to appear in as many different types of places -- meta tags, page titles, opening paragraphs, header tags, etc. -- as possible to raise the URL's connection to those terms.
4) Then there is the "miserable failure" effect. If you haven't tried it, go do it right now. Go to Google, type in "miserable failure", then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button. The words "miserable" and "failure" appear nowhere in the page you will arrive at. The reason you end up there, however, is because one author of a popular blog asked his readers to link that URL to the words "miserable failure" on their own web sites. As a result, Google's search mechanism has tied those two words to that particular page as the strongest possible match for those search terms.
This could be the best way to raise the visibility of Babble. If you link here on your own blog or on other sites in comments or whatever, making "Psycho-Babble" or "Dr. Bob" the words tied to the URL will only strengthen the link between those specific terms and the URL of the home page. If people want to look for "depression medication help" or something like that, then we need to make our links to Babble from other web sites clicky on those particular words. What would be the best words to use? The words that the survey suggested above would discover. Then, asking anyone who links to this site to use a common phrase or sentence will use the "miserable failure" effect to create a wonderful success.
Hope I've touched on what all y'all have been talking about. If not, nevermind me. Sorry about the treatise ... but as you may have guessed this is what I do for a living.
be well,
bobDang, Dr. B, you've been busy while I've been gone....
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2006, at 2:41:01
In reply to Re: blocking ONLY search-engines, posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 1:52:07
> 1) Dr. Bob -- do you use a robots.txt file and/or robots meta tags?
Not usually, it's OK with me if the whole site gets indexed.
> 2) Reducing the pages indexed can increase the value of pages that do get indexed. Having actual discussions cataloged by Google **may** be of value to certain people at certain times, but you already provide your own means of accessing archives, both through search and through browsing.
Sorry, I don't see how not indexing some pages increases the value of other pages...
Those are separate issues, how people get here in the first place and how they access the archives once they're here. And it's a good question, how many people initially find their way here via post vs. top-level pages.
> 3) Conducting a poll or survey of the search terms that people use to find sites like Babble is one of the most important things that can be done to raise Babble's relevance for search engines. The most typical, common, popular terms that fit with the mission of the site need to appear in as many different types of places -- meta tags, page titles, opening paragraphs, header tags, etc. -- as possible to raise the URL's connection to those terms.
What do you think would be some good terms for meta tags?
> 4) Then there is the "miserable failure" effect...
>
> asking anyone who links to this site to use a common phrase or sentence will use the "miserable failure" effect to create a wonderful success.But isn't that kind of putting all your eggs in that one basket?
> as you may have guessed this is what I do for a living.
Thanks for the great input! :-)
Bob
Posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 7:11:55
In reply to Re: Babble's relevance for search engines, posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2006, at 2:41:01
> Sorry, I don't see how not indexing some pages increases the value of other pages...
I'd actually need to see if Google does this, but it's easy enough for them to track what URLs are targetted when people exit their site. Matching exit URLs with the search terms that generated the results can tell them which pages were better matches for those terms. The more different pages from which people arrive at Babble, the more diluted those scores become ... especially if a search returns multiple hits on Babble instead of one or two particular pages.
> What do you think would be some good terms for meta tags?No idea. If most people land here by searching for fairly specific terms like brand names of meds, that would be much harder to target. This can be one of those things about which what people THINK would be good doesn't match with what they actually DO. Some keywords might be "obvious", but others might be surprising.
You might be able to find out some of this from your server logs. If the metrics software you have access to allows you to see the most common referring URLS, not just domains, you may be able to pull some terms out of query strings from search engine redirects ... if any score high enough for the metrics software to display.
> But isn't that kind of putting all your eggs in that one basket?Yeah, and that can actually be a Very Good Thing. If that one basket provides a clear vision of what new visitors can expect from this site, you can better establish the "value" of your "brand".
If all people want is some very specific information on a narrow topic and then they want to leave, then this wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. If you expect that people would want to stay and check out a broader range of what the site has to offer, then having them drop off on a page of some discussion that took place 18 months ago isn't going to help them see the big picture right away.
Posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 13:35:28
In reply to Re: Babble's relevance for search engines, posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 7:11:55
I should point out that focusing on getting the home page and the top-level pages for each forum to be the primary destinations from search engines might also strike a compromise between getting new people to the info they need and giving vets a measure of privacy. For the newcomers, the question would be whether the pages a search engine points them at be informative enough for them to know what to do next. People look for information both through searching and through browsing, but some studies show that users mostly ignore site-based search features and browse to information instead. In other words, they make be very likely to start their search at Google or Yahoo, but as soon as they arrive in Babbleland they'll probably switch to browsing.
Would this be serving newcomers best, or allowing the search engines to grab it all with fairly equal weighting be it? And is there enough concern from the more socially anxious to push for more of a compromise? (after broadcasting I was bringing a camera to an early Babble event and seeing the effect that might have had, I try to be sensitive about making things too public!)
Posted by AuntieMel on January 28, 2006, at 14:48:48
In reply to Re: Babble's relevance for search engines, posted by finelinebob on January 27, 2006, at 13:35:28
Wow - good to see you back.
You don't know me, but you were very instrumental in saving my life. Thank you, I think.
You seem to be feeling much better. I've been worried.
Posted by finelinebob on January 30, 2006, at 20:50:48
In reply to Re: Babble's relevance for search engines » finelinebob, posted by AuntieMel on January 28, 2006, at 14:48:48
> You don't know me, but you were very instrumental in saving my life. Thank you, I think.
What goes around, comes around -- especially on this board.
> You seem to be feeling much better. I've been worried.
Been through a long, dark place, but that's better left for another board. Thanks for asking all the same =)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 31, 2006, at 22:19:31
In reply to Re: searchability, posted by Dr. Bob on January 7, 2006, at 3:25:17
>I think that might be doable...
Do you just mean to say that you think it might be possible?
I mean...
You didn't mean that you were actually going to do it. Did you?
Just wondering. Sorry if I'm being dense.
I know you are busy and stuff...
I guess I'd like to see a smaller group that is only viewable to members. I guess I'd like to see whether it would turn into more of a process group than the current setup. With people knowing the posters more and stuff... And with it being safer (in the sense people from 2000 mention) where people know where you are at more in terms of greater context so you don't have to worry as much about being misunderstood and stuff. Might be a place to process some of the stuff that is hard to process on the current boards too...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.