| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad order of Postgres links in Google search results and how to fix it |
| Date: | 2018-10-21 14:15:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2833.1540131316@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> We could actually make the current version "canonical" but then it would be
> actually awkward if anyone wanted to search for older docs. And it's not
> true in general that every page is present in every version. We sometimes
> add or remove pages from the docs... That still might be the only really
> useful option today.
I'm not quite following why that's such a bad option?
People would get sent to the current version, sure, but there's a header
right there with a link to the prior version they actually want.
Pages being deleted might be a problem, but how would a nonexistent
"canonical" marking on a page that doesn't exist stop indexing of older
pages? Maybe we could even notice "page XYZ doesn't exist after 9.3,
so mark 9.3's version as canonical".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-10-22 11:55:22 | Re: <code> padding |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2018-10-21 11:00:03 | <code> padding |