Good place to start. So, not acceptable because 3.0 rather than 3, right, and therefore not the current version?
I could imagine a system whereby any reference to older versions was redirected to current if the source is a search engine. This should only be implemented for pages that can be version-selected. It seems to me this could be a feasible technical fix, but the question of whether this would be a desirable change remains to be debated. Not all problems should have technical solutions ... regards Steve PS: Spooky Halloween thought: I have no idea why pydotorg-www@ should be listed in my address book as "Food" ... Steve Holden On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not quite sure where this should go, so I'll start here. > > I needed to look up a bit more information about the timeit module than I > happened to be carrying around in my noggin just now, so I asked Google to > tell me about "Python timeit". The first three hits were: > > https://docs.python.org/2/library/timeit.html > https://docs.python.org/3.0/library/timeit.html > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8220801/how-to-use-timeit-module > > The first and third hits are fine. The second, not so much. At this point, > I think any and all links directly into the 3.0 (and maybe 3.1) > documentation should perhaps redirect to the supported > https://docs.python.org/3 pages, at least unless URLs carry some sort of > "yes-damnit!" parameter. Maybe the robots.txt file should "disallow" > traversal of the /3.0 and /3.1 trees as well. > > Just a couple thoughts... > > Skip Montanaro > > > _______________________________________________ > pydotorg-www mailing list > pydotorg-www@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www > >
_______________________________________________ pydotorg-www mailing list pydotorg-www@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pydotorg-www
