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

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 9:28

Well this mysterious unexplained glitch seems to have accurately captured another website on 30 April 2007

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

Date on captured webpage is Monday, Apr 30. The WB timestamp is 2007 - 04 - 30 20:53:55

by Guest 21.06.15 9:31

[quote="whatsupdoc"]Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've been checking the mccann.html files on WBM and if you try 30th April and the 1st May links including an * after the date/time stamp you get the calendar and can see the 30th and the 1st snapshot dates, Clicking on either will bring up a pic of Madeleine but the date on the top has been changed to 13th May.

The link for YouTube around midday on the 30th April is still there and showing 30th April when the snapshot is clicked on. All working, no problems.

So other sites such as YouTube are working on 30th April around 1200 on WBM ...just the mccann.html file causing a problem....AFAIK

I don't think a glitch covers an event such as making a file entry days before it has supposedly occured.[/quote]

clapping

At least one of us keeps their eye on the ball

Isn't that what we are all about?

by Guest 21.06.15 9:35

Several CEOP pages that were archived on 30th April 2007 at 11.58.03 have been now removed from the base folder.

Including this one:

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

Which could have proved interesting.

Anyway they've deleted more than one file.

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 9:44

BlueBag wrote:How do they trip up unless challenged?

They trip up by what they posted, no need challenging for that to happen.

Kate & Gerry are perfect examples.
They are infamous for their trip up speeches/statements all the time, not always necessarily with any provocation or challenge.

Anyway back to topic.

by Guest 21.06.15 9:47

This one is also deleted:

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

If you trip through the snapshots of the press release pages they all seem entirely accurate for the date selected.

Except for April 30th which is getting redirected because the original has been deleted.

by Guest 21.06.15 10:05

New York Times 30th April 2007.. perfect.

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

by canada12 21.06.15 10:09

I'm still quite astounded that an entity like WBM [based in the US] would tamper with files that could potentially have a link to an ongoing police investigation in the UK.

However, having said that, I'm also equally persuaded that if the police investigation in the UK needed any information about these files, they should be able to access the full dossier of information from WBM if required.

And I still want to believe this is something OG was aware of even before we were, and they have been watching what's been happening, making notes, and investigating.

And the fact that so many files have now disappeared may be a false signal to whoever asked for the changes, to convince them that WBM is dancing to their tune... when it might actually be the opposite, and a net has been cast and is slowly reeling in its catch.

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 10:10

PeterMac wrote:They haven't managed to 'whoosh' it yet.

Have a look, and make your own copies and screenshots

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

(It would, incidentally, fit with the Last Photo's having been taken on 29th April, as we know)
Wouldn't it be poetic if CEOPS were the source of the downfall.
But might this revelation show why Gamble has been so defensive, and gave up any semblance of professional detachment ?
The date is shown very clearly top right.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Just reposting PMs post to show the page actually existed..before the 'dirty tricks brigade' took action.

by SixMillionQuid 21.06.15 10:13

BlueBag wrote:New York Times 30th April 2007.. perfect.

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

by HKP 21.06.15 10:18

Whilst I'm not supporting WLBTS his point of what other archived pages show things from the future still stands as far as I can see. Has anyone found any other page that replicates the McCann.htm page where there are items detailed from months further on. I realise there's the whole dynamic verses static debate but is there another replication.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.06.15 10:48

Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07

3. It then archived that 'find'

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages

5. 'Stevo' found this archive result on Tuesday last week

6. Isabelle McFadden wrote to Christopher Butler, Wayback Office Manager, and asked him to confirm the result. He did so in unequivocal terms

7. HideHo then 'phoned Christopher Buler

8. Christopher Butler then said 'it must be a mistake' to both HideHo and Isabelle McFadden. And has since sdaid nothing further.

9. Wayback is now 'correcting' its 'error'.

If I am not correct about points 1 to 4, would those who suggest this was an error, or 'glitch', please explain in clear terms which part of Nos. 1 to 4 above is not right.

If there was an error, or 'glitch', please explain in clear terms what that error or glitch was.

Thanks

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 10:53

BlueBag wrote:Several CEOP pages that were archived on 30th April 2007 at 11.58.03 have been now removed from the base folder.

Including this one:

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

Which could have proved interesting.

Anyway they've deleted more than one file.

If a *glitch* why not leave it in situ after the explanation?
Serves no useful purpose to reassign or whoosh it. It only attracts attention in the negative way. If it's a glitch surely all other erroneous data in the system has to be rectified. If there is an error in the timestamp or software setup would it not be better if they put up a notification and apology on their site stating which to which period needs to be overhauled to reflect accuracy?
Surely that would be better damage control and limit their liability also where use of their archive info is concerned for judicial purposes. With the accuracy validity issue invalidated by them, their archived records can no longer be of use to the public, let alone court.

What's the point of Wayback Machine if it now invalidates it own integrity by their action of regrouping and reallocating things and/or whooshed certain archive records (even if erroneous one) from view.

The proper way to amend is to issue appendix notes to explain the *error* while at the same time leaving the *error* in situ, rather than reallocating it to new slot and whooshing the *error* leaving no trace of it. It's ironic that the WBM data captured by public members has become *wayback* info in the public domain but no longer held in archive by WBM.

by Guest 21.06.15 11:00

Tony Bennett wrote:Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07

YES... previous New York Times page proves it. It also archived amazon.com twice that day and looks correct.

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07

All the CEOP pages were "found" and archived.. they've all since been deleted. I have given examples.

3. It then archived that 'find'

Yes.

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages

Yes.

by Guest 21.06.15 11:02

WBM have to demonstrate that CEOP was not the only page with a problem.

If they can't do that I cry foul.

by **PeterMac** 21.06.15 11:07

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Is this right? - just asking for clarification please

1. The Wayback Machine was crawling the web on 30 April 07
YES... previous New York Times page proves it. It also archived amazon.com twice that day and looks correct.

2. It crawled over ('found') the 'Madeleine html' page on the CEOP website at 11.58am & 3 secs on 30 April 07
All the CEOP pages were "found" and archived.. they've all since been deleted. I have given examples.

3. It then archived that 'find'
Yes.

4. When it 'found' that 'Madeleine html' page, on it was an old photo of Madeleine McCann and some text in 4 different languages
Yes.

It really does help to ask questions in the simplest possible way, as this demonstrates.

Rather like "Mrs Martorell, you have said three times that Madeline was 'abducted'. Do you have any evidence of this ?"

by HKP 21.06.15 11:15

Aiyoyo, you make a good point, you would have thought that a holding page/statement would have been inserted to buy some time but no they've wooshed the lot. It does raise suspicions and also questions their integrity.

@Tony point 3 I beg to differ (however that is for another day) Point 7 that's your opinion (although wrong) and you're entitled to it.

by Guest 21.06.15 11:29

Does anyone have a screenshot of the 30th April 2007 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] page that has also been deleted?

I didn't see that one myself.

It may change my view.

It had news on it for October 2007?

by LG 21.06.15 11:33

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

by Guest 21.06.15 11:36

WBM is perhaps screwed in October 2007 or CEOP reversed a page update.

This is 9th October.. There is news for 8th october
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is the 12th October... news for 8th October is missing, looks like the previous 2nd October page.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 21.06.15 11:38

LG wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I can'r read the full url... what is it please?

by MRNOODLES 21.06.15 11:53

So as a non techie I have to either trust either.

1. The original search was really correct

or

2. The Java Fairy had a brain fart and only messed up over the McCanns again. (As Harry Hill says, 'What's the chances of that happening?)

by whatsupdoc 21.06.15 12:14

Are some people saying that the mccann.html file found by the crawler on 30th April should have been moved to it's "proper" location when the next crawler came along?

Well , it's been 8 years and the file hasn't been touched till this week. WBM has said the file has been moved ...so it was a file!

cul8tr

by Guest 21.06.15 12:15

BlueBag wrote:
LG wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I can'r read the full url... what is it please?

Does that url say

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

Or is it a redirect?

If it does then I think it means that the WBM was definitely broken in October 2007.

As some posters pointed out right at the beginning of this thread (should have paid attention).

All the now deleted CEOP pages had an archive date of 20070430 115803.. they were all saved in the same process (hover the cursor over all of them) including the mccan.html page.

I would not expect a genuine April archive to have October 2007 data in it.

So it seems WBM was working fine on April 30th (as was shown) but not in October.

I'd still like to see other examples though.

by Joss 21.06.15 12:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Jan. 11, 2013 5:59 pm

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

If you’re looking to get a flash back to when Newt Gingrich looked like he might be the next president, or you want to pretend that the City of Heroes community was still intact, or you just want something to help kill the time at work, the Wayback Machine is for you. It has been the definitive source of archived Internet content for years, and it just received a humongous update.

This week, the Wayback Machine jumped from an archive of 150 billion URLs [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The massive data centers that process all of this content now hold more than five [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of information (that’s five million gigabytes).

It’s a pretty simple process — just enter a URL, and you will be presented with a list of all the different dates and times that the URL was archived. Click on one of those dates and you will go back in time, being presented with exactly what that website looked like back in the day. Among the items being highlighted with the newest update are full archives of the City of Heroes website, as well as Fortune City, Splinder, and tons of presidential election content.

The Wayback Machine, which is organized by a non-profit group called the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], has origins dating back to 2005, although the data collection that allowed such an infrastructure to be created was started in 1996. Its design is specifically to be used for people wanting to look back at a website several months ago or earlier. It is not meant for people who want to see what was written on a site last week.

It has actually been used in legal cases, to point to claims or statements that were made on websites but were later removed. That shows just how reliable these digital archives are. It also emphasizes the point that once something is on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], it is as good as permanent, no matter whether or not it’s changed later on.

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

by Carrry On Doctor 21.06.15 12:24

Just catching up on a remarkable thread.

What puzzles me is why nothing has been reported in the MSM ?

This story seems to have substance, and WBM management have put their initial clarification, standing by their service, in the public domain. They subsequently claim there may have been a 'glitch', thus committing commercial suicide, and opening up a legal can of worms for previous cases.

Whatever angle you decide to take, this is news, and nothing sells papers like poor MBM.

Not libelous either...so why nothing in the press ?

by Guest 21.06.15 12:28

I think WBM could be used in legal cases... IF... the archived page contains it's own time stamp.

Like many BBC pages do, and newspapers... Date and time of article.

Or forum posts.

I think after what we've seen here a good lawyer could wriggle out of something based on the WBM timestamp.

by Guest 21.06.15 12:37

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
LG wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I can'r read the full url... what is it please?

Does that url say

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

Or is it a redirect?

If it does then I think it means that the WBM was definitely broken in October 2007.

As some posters pointed out right at the beginning of this thread (should have paid attention).

All the now deleted CEOP pages had an archive date of 20070430 115803.. they were all saved in the same process (hover the cursor over all of them) including the mccan.html page.

I would not expect a genuine April archive to have October 2007 data in it.

So it seems WBM was working fine on April 30th (as was shown) but not in October.

I'd still like to see other examples though.

I can see now that the URL is a REDIRECT to the 20071013 (13th October) folder.

Does anyone have a snapshot of the page in the 20070430 115803 folder?

If it can be shown that the april folder absolutely had october data it it then that does it for me.

I haven't seen that yet.

by HKP 21.06.15 12:38

@BB the filename and timestamp are axactky the same, read further back the thread for the Wayback FAQ's it points out this is important (datestamp & filename the same)

by Guest 21.06.15 12:40

HKP wrote:@BB the filename and timestamp are axactky the same, read further back the thread for the Wayback FAQ's it points out this is important (datestamp & filename the same)

There should have been an entry in the April 30th folder for that page with october data on it.

Was there?

by aiyoyo 21.06.15 12:41

BlueBag wrote:WBM have to demonstrate that CEOP was not the only page with a problem.

If they can't do that I cry foul.

The significant is, if they do demonstrate that CEOP is not the only one erroneously archived, it would mean Archive.Org has brought itself into disrepute that could raise issue of their liability.

All past court cases that used their info for successful convictions are now brought into question. Effectively if they were to admit now to a wider scale *error* they would be liable to all sorts I would imagine.

They should have stated that from the outset from the very first received enquiry, without the need for revolving replies and without having to whooshed records that made them look suspicious. The info they got given by HDH on the Mccanns case and its implication should have no bearing whatsoever on their answer one way or another. That is a different and separate matter altogether.

If it was indeed a * glitch* it is just that, does not matter about anything else, implication or otherwise of anything or something else should not be their concern. They only concern should be the "accuracy" of their archive and nothing else. If it is a genuine case of *error* - software setup or glitch - acknowledging the mistake should suffice, simple as.

It may well be a genuine case of *error* but they are handling it very badly.