Regarding the guidelines posted by Peter Suber
>How to facilitate Google crawling
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/googlecrawling.htm
As I think I have posted earlier, main dot points 3, 4 and 5 are not
relevant to out-of-the-box Eprints. It complies, having a browse interface
with the necessary characteristics of a bushy tree. I suggest that the
advice be appended to these three dot points to say that "Eprints is
compliant" and any other software that reports similarly. That saves wasting
the time of a major proportion of repositories trying to check these points.
Dot point six is *important*. Repositories that create a document as
contents.pdf, mainbody.pdf; or even worse chapter1.pdf. chapter2.pdf,
chapter-n.pdf are simply asking not to be indexed, not to mention greatly
irritating viewers of the repository who may want to read the document. It
assumes that they will want to print all the subfiles and re-assemble them.
In my experience this only applies to long documents such as PhD theses, for
example the Australian Digital Theses Program advises this poor practice.
Arthur Sale
Professor of Computing (Research), University of Tasmania
Received on Fri Jan 28 2005 - 06:45:35 GMT