Claim by 'Stevo' - "CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007"

Doug D wrote:One of or old ‘friends’ has now jumped in on Candyfloss’ forum to categorically junk the theory & Resistor’s investigations, which to me lends credence to the whole story.
 
Resistor is still working methodically through his investigation, posting information up as he sees fit, posing questions, but not yet fully committed either way, which is as it should be.


He admits that he is lacking in some screenshots of code etc that would help and I wonder whether Steve Marsden or someone has other information that could be privately shared to him, without giving the 'whooshers' full knowledge of what they have discovered and where they are looking.

HiDeHo wrote:

Doug D wrote:One of or old ‘friends’ has now jumped in on Candyfloss’ forum to categorically junk the theory & Resistor’s investigations, which to me lends credence to the whole story.
 
Resistor is still working methodically through his investigation, posting information up as he sees fit, posing questions, but not yet fully committed either way, which is as it should be.


He admits that he is lacking in some screenshots of code etc that would help and I wonder whether Steve Marsden or someone has other information that could be privately shared to him, without giving the 'whooshers' full knowledge of what they have discovered and where they are looking.

 I took full page screenshots and copy/paste of some of the code, which I will happily pass on to anyone that would like them

MRNOODLES wrote:May I ask a question (or two) re webcrawlers... forgive me if I sound thick.

Is the page source/ view element part of each web page able to be found by web crawlers?

Reason why I ask.  Norwich City FC had a 'shirtgate' incident a few years back.  The club intended to unveil their new football shirts on such and such date.  But some bright spark a day of two before, had a good gander at the website's 'pagesource' and found pictures of the new shirt already on the site.  Cut a long story short the chief exec accused this person of hacking, but it never came to anything because it came down to the web developers for being sloppy for storing them on the site early and viewing the page source is fair game to be viewed.

I sort of visualise it in my non techie brain as, normal website above ground, page source below ground.  So therefore can these crawlers ferret out stuff below ground.

Sorry if that sounds a bit dense.

interestedobserver wrote:If Christopher Butler would be kind enough to reply to the questions asked by Tony on 18th June we would all be much wiser.

What is a Web Crawler?

A web crawler (also known as web spider) is a program which browses the World Wide Web in a methodical, automated manner. A web crawler is one type of bot. Web crawlers not only keep a copy of all the visited pages for later processing - for example by a search engine but also index these pages to make the search narrower... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How Web Crawlers Work

• the website url
  
• the web page title
  
• the meta tag information
  
• the web page content
  
• the links on the page, and where they go to
  
• When the web crawler returns home the information is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by the search engine.
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

Tony Bennett wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:May I ask a question (or two) re webcrawlers... forgive me if I sound thick.

Is the page source/ view element part of each web page able to be found by web crawlers?

Reason why I ask.  Norwich City FC had a 'shirtgate' incident a few years back.  The club intended to unveil their new football shirts on such and such date.  But some bright spark a day of two before, had a good gander at the website's 'pagesource' and found pictures of the new shirt already on the site.  Cut a long story short the chief exec accused this person of hacking, but it never came to anything because it came down to the web developers for being sloppy for storing them on the site early and viewing the page source is fair game to be viewed.

I sort of visualise it in my non techie brain as, normal website above ground, page source below ground.  So therefore can these crawlers ferret out stuff below ground.

Sorry if that sounds a bit dense.

@ MRNOODLES   Hmmn, yes, this relates to the issue raised by @ Nuala yesterday of whether or not a web crawler/search engine could pick up material put on a web page that did not yet have a 'hyperlink'.

S/he said emphatically 'No, that's not possible'.

But 'Resistor' over at the other place posted this at 11.37 this morning:

QUOTE:  Yes, a lot of crawlers work like that, the biggest and most obvious being Google, but probably not all of them. It's perfectly possible for some to work in a different way and hoover up everything on a server, whether it has been linked to or not.


Therefore two apparent tecchie experts disagree on this issue (as I foresaw last night).

So we are no further forward on that issue, never mind all the other ones.

I am not sure whether Nuala's post just now (above) resolves this issue

jeanmonroe wrote:What is a Web Crawler?
--------------

ONLY MEEEEEE!

Nuala wrote:@ BlueBag

Web crawlers might work that way, they also might work a different way.

No, web crawlers can only work one way.

"It cannot be published accidentally. Someone would have to publish it."

Syn wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:May I ask a question (or two) re webcrawlers... forgive me if I sound thick.

Is the page source/ view element part of each web page able to be found by web crawlers?

Reason why I ask.  Norwich City FC had a 'shirtgate' incident a few years back.  The club intended to unveil their new football shirts on such and such date.  But some bright spark a day of two before, had a good gander at the website's 'pagesource' and found pictures of the new shirt already on the site.  Cut a long story short the chief exec accused this person of hacking, but it never came to anything because it came down to the web developers for being sloppy for storing them on the site early and viewing the page source is fair game to be viewed.

I sort of visualise it in my non techie brain as, normal website above ground, page source below ground.  So therefore can these crawlers ferret out stuff below ground.

Sorry if that sounds a bit dense.

@ MRNOODLES   Hmmn, yes, this relates to the issue raised by @ Nuala yesterday of whether or not a web crawler/search engine could pick up material put on a web page that did not yet have a 'hyperlink'.

S/he said emphatically 'No, that's not possible'.

But 'Resistor' over at the other place posted this at 11.37 this morning:

QUOTE:  Yes, a lot of crawlers work like that, the biggest and most obvious being Google, but probably not all of them. It's perfectly possible for some to work in a different way and hoover up everything on a server, whether it has been linked to or not.


Therefore two apparent tecchie experts disagree on this issue (as I foresaw last night).

So we are no further forward on that issue, never mind all the other ones.

I am not sure whether Nuala's post just now (above) resolves this issue

Nuala is correct.  


All the crap about it being uploaded in advance onto the site but not publicly viewable is simply that, just crap as Wayback does not crawl orphan pages.


'Orphan pages: If there are no links to your pages, the robot won't find it (the robots don't enter queries in search boxes.)' 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The page will have been linked from the index.asp / home page. e.g. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Plus by the time it was archived by WB so many people had clicked on the link in October or whenever it was from pages like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6637469.stm that the crawler would have found it.


What people need to remember here is that Goncalo Amaral requested CEOP assistance on 7th May [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and they were in PDL the next day on the 8th [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Then CEOP released a Press Release on the 9th 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You'll need to copy and paste this one into your browser


Then both CEOP and VirtualGlobalTaskforce uploaded the Appeal on the 9th 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (VGT link on right hand side)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



and then MSM picked it up and ran with it on the 10th 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




So if you think there is some conspiracy going on you are saying that GA was party to it and I don't know about you guys n gals, but I don't think that for a second.


This is how the page looked in the Government National Archive and how it will have looked when first uploaded on the 9th May IMO based on the above timeline from request by G Amaral on the 7th onwards
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Wayback has issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one.  This is down to how WB stored them during archive. There is no full path to the image.  WB stores relative image paths whereas the National Archive stores absolute image paths. The flag gifs are backgrounds to paragraphs not standard inline images. Unlike an image which will appear broken and not loadable if the paths are broken like the Arabic image, if a paragraph background image fails to load it will just display the default page back ground colour as can be seen on the WB archive but not on the National Archive version.


Hope this all makes sense :)

Syn wrote:

Wayback has issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one....I hope this makes sense 

Tony Bennett wrote:

Syn wrote:

Wayback has issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one....I hope this makes sense 

YES.

It does.

You are saying that Wayback Machine/archive.org is unreliable.

Period.

Tony Bennett wrote:

interestedobserver wrote:If Christopher Butler would be kind enough to reply to the questions asked by Tony on 18th June we would all be much wiser.

Indeed, I am going to wait patiently until the end of the day and then, if there is still no reply, I will send a reminder.

I will also ask some further questions, including what alterations they have made to any data and why.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his last recorded message to HideHo, he said that the people at Wayback were still 'investigating' the matter.

Maybe those 'investiagtions' are taking a very long time.

Maybe that long time is justified - because if it turns out that their printed message - which we've all seen now in green type, namely that the web was crawled at 11.58am on 30 April 2007 and found a Madeleine 'html' page on the CEOP website, turns out to be FALSE, then - as many other posters have said - crash! bang! goes their reputation for accuracy, and defendant after defendant in court cases the world over will say:

"Look at their blunder over that CEOP page, their claims mean anything and nothing, they admitted what they had said on their archive was false, and just airily waved their error away as a 'glitch'."

Wayback's reputation for accuracy going...going...gone

Syn wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Syn wrote:

Wayback has issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one....I hope this makes sense 

YES.

It does.

You are saying that Wayback Machine/archive.org is unreliable.

Period.

I think they had some issues in 2007 certainly with pdfs etc

They acknowledge this themselves

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sallypelt wrote:

Syn wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Syn wrote:

Wayback has issues loading the flag gifs on all captures of the page including the erroneous 30/04/07 one....I hope this makes sense 

YES.

It does.

You are saying that Wayback Machine/archive.org is unreliable.

Period.

I think they had some issues in 2007 certainly with pdfs etc

They acknowledge this themselves

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What a coincidence. 2007, again?  The McCann saga is full of "coincidences" and you know what they say when there are so many coincidences?

whatsupdoc wrote:Syn  Could you explain the following link which arrives at 30th April having a 1st May @ midnight in the date / time stamp followed by the *  ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]