What is BoardReader?

As I was cruising through Google looking at the various blog hits for “Bacon Salt” (don’t ask) I happened to notice that the SDMB posts on the subject came up on a website called “Board Reader.”


Is this authorized? I thought the SDMB didn’t want to be google-able.

The stats on that site are pretty cool to, they have a lot of neat stats about both the members and the forums. I was reading the list of top posters and thinking, “Wow, these guys need a life,” then I saw who #10 was from last week.


It appears we are being spidered by this search engine.

I cannot say what management wants to do about this, though I do note they have attempted to block search engines in the past.

I will refer this upstairs to management.

My work here is done. :cool:


This is news? I thought this was a “feature” that was welcomed, even encouraged, a few years past, back when most search engines did not start with “g”. Is there a downside?

It seems that such a function, done at no cost to SDMB, would be a good thing. Tell me where I went wrong in my logic.

I’m not a SDMB management guru, but at a guess:

Spiders siphon away message board bandwidth by constantly crawling around, and they redirect viewer eyes away from the Google ads. Also, one of the benefits of SDMB paid membership is the ability to search the forums; this ability would be short-circuited by a free-loading off-site webcrawler service.

Hello all. Thank you for your concerns and questions.

BoardReader was approved to index Straightdope.com’s forums back in April 2002. Joe (not sure if he is still the admin here) talked with us at great lengths back then to make sure we indexed Straightdope.com in the least intrusive way. We continue to improve our indexing and hope users of Straightdope can benefit from what we do at BoardReader.com - connect online communities through search.

This thread: SDMB Archived On Another Site

Helped explain a lot.

Good luck with that (the first time this came up, in 2002, you did that twice with no (apparent) response)

Neener neener neener.