"Mark Polesky" <markpole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1372597112.8599.yahoomail...@web181401.mail.ne1.yahoo.com...
If robots.txt was getting updated properly, all of our Google
search bar problems would be solved. We could then stop telling
Google to restrict the search results to a patrticular version
from the search box itself. The robots.txt file only allows the
current stable docs to be indexed.
No - it would (AFAICS) prevent indexing docs prior to current stable. It
would still index current development, which I believe remains correct.
If robots.txt was getting updated properly, then only 2.16 should
appear in search results, and would continue to appear for a
little while after we release 2.18. Then, the next time the
Google bot visits lilypond.org, it would read robots.txt, remove
the 2.16 docs from the search results, then follow every link from
the homepage that isn't "disallowed", i.e. the entire website,
with only the 2.18 docs. That's exactly what we want, so let's
just fix the problem with robots.txt.
By the way, fixing that would kill 3 items in the tracker with one
blow:
Issue 2909: Manual search returns results from wrong version
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2909
Issue 3209: Searching stable release documentation should only return
results from stable release
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3209
Issue 3367: Web/Docs: LilyPond version is not clear on docs web pages
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3367
Again - I don't think it would fix this, because users would still confuse
current stable and current development. We had a lot of discussion about
this problem on -user, and I think this is still a positive fix.
- Mark
OK - I've checked the server, and you're quite right - there appears no
mechanism for git/Documentation/web/server/robots.txt to update the root of
the web server. I believe that make website copies it to
/website/robots.txt, which is essentially useless. As I see it, there are 3
options: 1) I could manually copy robots.txt. This is not a long-term
solution, but would be a step forward right now. If Mark wants me to do
this and no-one shouts, I will. 2) We could have a Cron job on the server
to do this. This strikes me as less good than 3) we could update make
website to do this.
Please let me know.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
