Fixing www.gnucash.orgs/docs

[Christian Stimming]

Dear David,

indeed. The 1.8 tutorial shows up first, even though robots.txt clearly says 
this URL should not go into the index.

@Developers: What do we do?
- Delete the v1.8 (and v1.6 and v2.0) docs altogether from the web page
- Move them to different location, such as $root/docs/old/*
- Do nothing

Ideas?

Christian


Am Dienstag, 15. November 2011 schrieb David T.:
> Christian--
> 
> 
> A while back I mentioned that the first hits in a Google search for a
> Gnucash tutorial returns outdated documentation.
> 
> I just did a new search on "gnucash tutorial," and the top hit for me is
> still the v1.8  guide. The svn version is listed second, while the 2.4
> version in pdf is listed third--at least on my computer.
> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Christian Stimming <christian at cstimming.de>
> To: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> Cc: David T. <sunfish62 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Fixing www.gnucash.orgs/docs
> 
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011 schrieb David T.:
> > Would it be possible to fix www.gnucash.org so that the docs for version
> > 1.8 don't
> 
>  appear at the top of Google searches? Currently, most such
> 
> > searches put at least one link for something in www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8
> > in the first few results. This can be extremely misleading to new users,
> > who may not even notice the version number in the path.
> > 
> > Perhaps this portion of the document tree could be zipped up and made
> > downloadable for that one person out there who still needs documentation
> > for 1.8, rather than have some seriously-outdated documentation presented
> > to the average user who uses Google to find help for their brand new
> > installation of 2.4.6.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. As a very first step, I've added the
> 1.6/1.8/2.0 paths in robots.txt so that they shouldn't be indexed by
> search engines anymore. (There is still the 2.2 *and* 2.4 path allowed.)
> 
> Can you follow up on this issue in a few weeks from now, when the search
> engines should
>  have picked up this change? If the 1.8 docs still show up more
> prominently, we should indeed do something about this (such as moving them
> to another directory "obsolete..."), but maybe we don't need to zip them
> up.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christian