Subject: [alpine-devel] Mailing List Archives

From: Jeremy Thomerson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:18:43 -0500

Does anyone know why all of the links that Google has for our mailing
lists link to the wrong thing?  I am assuming that we have rebuilt the
archives or something and their cache of the pages is old.  It seems
like we could/should do something to try to remedy this.

Example: go to http://tinyurl.com/c23te2j (a Google search).  The
second link should probably be
http://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/1945.html which on Google's
search results page says it is Re: [alpine-devel] autossh / SSH
Persistent Tunnel from Nathan ..., but in actuality it is Re:
[alpine-devel] kamailio kamctl script fixed for dbtext support.

Jeremy

---
Unsubscribe:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: Jeff Bilyk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 16:23:19 -0400

I noticed the same a while back but ran out of time to investigate.
Is there a specific offset that you noticed?  For example, 1944.HTML
should really be loaded or such?

Jeff

---

---

From: Jeremy Thomerson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:24:03 -0500

No.  But, it does seem that the software being used to create the
mailing list archives is poorly designed.  For instance, look at
Google search [1].  It shows that message 0094.html on the
alpine-devel mailing list should be about a patch to Zabbix.

Then, click that link and go to the URL [2].  Message 0094 is your
response on this thread.  But the original message I sent is message
number 0825 [3].

It appears that hypermail is reusing message IDs for some reason.  Or
picking them out of a hat.  Or an extremely poor hashing algorithm.

Actually, in reading a little bit more about Hypermail [4], it's
probably just a configuration problem.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/8odgysn
[2] http://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/0094.html
[3] http://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-devel/0825.html
[4] http://www.hypermail-project.org/hypermail.html

Jeremy

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:51:31 +0200

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:18:43 -0500

> like we could/should do something to try to remedy this.

I have seen it too, but never taken the time to investigate why it
happens.

We should create a ticket for it on bugs.a.o

Thanks!

-nc

---

---

From: Kevin Chadwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:32:53 +0100

> We should create a ticket for it on bugs.a.o

I suppose it's something else but if the content has somehow changed in
relation to the filenames without changing the date then maybe a simple
touch to change the date will get Google to re-index them. If content
stays static for a long time Google takes longer and longer to check
and may only check the timestamp.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
_______________________________________________________________________

---