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

by Guest 22.06.15 8:09

Richard D. Hall wrote:Some of the screenshots showing the date of October news items on a 30 Apr archived page are curious. If the news items are not dynamic, then this is strange.

The archives with latest news items are copies of the dynamic content at that point in time. They become static in the archive. Not strange.

Am I right in saying that I cannot now produce this screenshot myself because their system has been changed?

Yes.. they removed the folder that held the 20150430 115803 entries and now you get redirects from the index.

If so, two things come to mind. Are the screenshots genuine? - I would imagine so because we have two independent posters

Yes for the same reason and the link was in the posts for people to check.

- secondly are we saying that in the history of WBM the only time it screws up is around the exact date of one of the most controversial news stories of all time?

We have no idea if it's the only time.
We care about it and make a fuss for obvious reasons, but have no idea of the scale of WBMs problem.

Also that it screwed up for a very short window of time, then started functioning perfectly again up till now?

Again we have no idea.

by Guest 22.06.15 8:22

Tony Bennett wrote:'Resistor' in the other place is still, well, resisting...

=====================================

Resistor Today at 1:00 am

We know that something was created on 30 April 2007 when the CEOP site was crawled, because pages were saved and an index (folder) created for it. I have no reason to doubt that date at all. 30 April 2007 at 11:58:03. For reasons I have already given (about 30 pages back now!) I trust server timers unless there is a very good reason for them to be "wrong".

False logic.

No we don't know that because something may have indexed into 20070430 115803 with a wrong date and time - trust me, computers do this because their stupid programmers don't think of everything for all circumstances :-)

What we DO know is that an October page ended up in the April folder and that shows the WBM was screwed in this instance so all the pages with the same date and time index are probably screwed as well for the same reason.

by HKP 22.06.15 8:38

@BB your 'all pages are probably screwed' statement is just an educated guess at this point in time is it not? (sorry can't properly quite as a guest)

by Guest 22.06.15 8:40

HKP wrote:@BB your 'all pages are probably screwed' statement is just an educated guess at this point in time is it not? (sorry can't properly quite as a guest)

Well.. yes based on 34 years of dealing with crap like this every day.

by HKP 22.06.15 8:41

@BB that should have read quote not quite, can't edit either big grin

by HKP 22.06.15 8:44

@BB wasn't questioning your knowledge or experience just that it was your 'expert opinion' rather than fact. Thanks winkwink

by Joss 22.06.15 8:59

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

There are 3 kinds of Wayback Machine Queries

1. URL Query: You can search Archive-It collections by URL from inside the application (under Access --> Wayback), or from a public collection page on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (ex: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). When you enter an URL (ex: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) into the Wayback Machine search page, your results will display as a list of dates on which the URL was archived. For example: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2. URL Prefix Query: This query will display all archived links for a given domain. To search using this query method add a '*' (or wildcard) to the end of the URL query (ex: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the address for this query is then: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The total number of captured documents will be displayed at the top of the screen. Please note this number reflects the total number of archived links, however only unique URLs will be displayed. For example you could have 1,000 links archived, but only be able to see 800 links listed. This is due to the fact that the same link has been captured multiple times. Next to each listed link you will see a number of versions; this refers to the number of different captures for each link.
3. URL Date Query: This is a search by specific date or date range. This query relies on the 14 digit date code in the middle of each archived URL (yyyymmddhhmmss). You can use a combination of dates and '*' to manipulate which capture dates you see in your results. EX: -[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] displays [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as it looked on September 13, 2007 at 20:45:39 GMT
Here are some more examples:
-http://wayback.archive-it.org/194/2007*/http://www.governor.state.nc.us/ - displays all 2007 captures of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] In this manner you can adjust to view only results for any year of crawling (just adjust the year in the date code).
-http://wayback.archive-it.org/194/200712*/http://www.governor.state.nc.us/ - displays all dates [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] captured in December 2007. You can limit even further to a specific date by adding to the date code.
You can switch back and forth from these queries at any time by changing the web address at the top of your browser window.
URL and URL date query only show results for the exact URL you are looking up. When you look up [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] you are only seeing captures for that homepage. However if you were viewing a page deep inside the site and you wanted to see what other dates that page was captured, just manually change the date code in the url to *.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 22.06.15 9:35

'Resistor' still maintains that something significant happened at CEOP on 30 April - but concedes that he can't prove it - and abandons hope (for the time being). From the other place:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Resistor wrote:

HKP. you have no idea how depressed this has all left me now. I still feel, really feel, that we have found something very significant indeed. And it is something I wish wasn't true, because it's evidence that something truly evil and horrific has happened, and a wee girl is dead. But I still remain convinced, because I know what I know and there's no way of unknowing it - and it is upsetting me very greatly.

And there is no way we can prove any of it, not without answers, sensible coherent definitive answers, from Wayback. ("A glitch" and "a mistake" are not definitive answers, BTW). We are never going to get those answers. It seems many people have asked them directly, all have been ignored, apart from Isabelle and Lizzie - and they only got answers because they asked before Wayback wised up to what was going on. And even then, the answers were in direct contradiction to one another, so it actually tells us nothing.

We won't get answers not because of some big CEOP or Government coverup, but because Wayback have to protect their reputation, or at least what's left of it. Because this has been such a hotly contested, divisive topic, in only a few days time, anyone who Googles something like "how accurate is Wayback" will be directed straight to one of these forums. Where the whole thing has been analysed to the nth degree and totally ripped apart by a lot of very knowledegable people. Wayback advertise themselves as an internet archive, but as the whole purpose of an archive is to preserve an accurate record, they are finished.

Nor do I think that Wayback were "leaned on". I think they might have been asked to remove the offending pages. They state in their own FAQ that they have no problem with that, and also that site owners can block their crawls with a robots file. I had a good look last night and I found quite a few, even pretty innocuous sites like the English FA.) So I'm not sure how this contributes to a "complete" Internet archive; that's a bit of a mixed message in their very own mission statements, right there.

So did mccann.html exist on 30 April 2007? Yes, I believe it did. Unfortunately, I cannot prove that it did. And neither can anyone else without a full explanation from Wayback, which we are not going to get.

Team McCann seem to have more lives than a bloody cat. What are the odds of this happening to this particular site?! I could just rip my own hair out with the sheer frustration and unfairness of it all. If I'm not seen for a couple of days, it's just that I am taking a break from this whole sorry mess, because I have been neglecting things that I should have been doing over the past couple of days and I have to get on with my own life.

If anyone ever does get any sort of response from Wayback, I'll be straight all over it like a bad rash, though.

by **Jill Havern** 22.06.15 9:45

But if the 30 April page is correct then why would wayback be worried about it? Why not just say "the page is correct, report it to the police, our reputation is intact"? Why would they need to find an explantion like a glitch is there wasn't one? If that page was there on 30 April then surely it's down to CEOP to be squirming.

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 9:49

I would tend to agree. The screenshots from before they changed their system do not prove to me that mccann.html did not exist on 30 April 2007. What they show is that a different page, which had the same archive date (30 April) probably contained data from October 2007. People are inferring from this that mccann.html must also have contained data from October 2007. But I don't see that it automatically follows. It is down to WBM to explain why mccann.html had an archive date of 30 April 2007. They have not as far as I can see explained in detail how this was the case and until they do, it is feasable that mccann.html was archived on that date.

by HKP 22.06.15 9:51

I'm going to ask the same question here:-

Why does WBM now point you to the 13th May for the archive when Chris Butler in his second email claims the original archive should read 31st July and it's all an error?

by Joss 22.06.15 9:52

I agree with Resistor's take on this very frustrating topic. It should be easily provable and the information very reliable IMO, and promptly backed up by one of their staff members. But all we have heard so far is crickets on it all. What is so difficult about a valid email explanation of how that could of happened from them? I also can't really see how a page existed for CEOP with an initial file date of 30/4/07 as found by WBM, and now it has been taken care of. Why that particular date if nothing existed on that date, that doesn't make any sense to me either, because you could have any random date in that case, so why the 30/4? You can't make something out of nothing on WBM from what i have read about it, it has to be able to retrieve the information for its database to appear there. I call BS.

by Joss 22.06.15 9:57

HKP wrote:I'm going to ask the same question here:-

Why does WBM now point you to the 13th May for the archive when Chris Butler in his second email claims the original archive should read 31st July and it's all an error?

Who knows ???? Maybe he needs to explain.

by HKP 22.06.15 10:04

@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about

by Joss 22.06.15 10:08

HKP wrote:@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about

I agree. If CB stands by his email to IM then he sure is contradicting that email. And it makes him look inept if he has now changed his tune. So yes, an explanation is warranted IMO.

by Syn 22.06.15 10:21

Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about
I agree. If CB stands by his email to IM then he sure is contradicting that email. And it makes him look inept if he has now changed his tune. So yes, an explanation is warranted IMO.

For heavens sake, I posted a screenshot of Chris's third email to Isabelle pages ago. This clearly explains why you are seeing 13th May at the moment.

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

by HKP 22.06.15 10:30

@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

by Joss 22.06.15 10:43

Syn wrote:
Joss wrote:
HKP wrote:@Joss, yes he does, why wouldn't they point to 31st July if this is the proper and original date. I'll answer myself cause it can't be as they are pointing to 13th of May ergo he doesn't know what he's talking about
I agree. If CB stands by his email to IM then he sure is contradicting that email. And it makes him look inept if he has now changed his tune. So yes, an explanation is warranted IMO.
For heavens sake, I posted a screenshot of Chris's third email to Isabelle pages ago. This clearly explains why you are seeing 13th May at the moment.

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

I don't see a date for May, lol

by Syn 22.06.15 10:43

HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

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

by Joss 22.06.15 10:46

Syn wrote:
HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

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

They still don't explain Why & How that happened? So how many errors do WBM actually make?

by HKP 22.06.15 10:49

@Syn. I was looking on a mobile device and it cut the image, apologies for the confusion.

by Syn 22.06.15 10:54

Joss wrote:
Syn wrote:
HKP wrote:@syn. Sorry I can't see the 13th May date in that image, is it specifically called out (may be I'm unable to see it in mobile view).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
They still don't explain Why that happened. So how many errors do WBM actually make?

They are still working on it and according to TB earlier in this thread, they will issue a statement when they have resolved the issue. I have no idea how many errors like this are made, probably thousands across the years and we have no way of pinpointing them.

by Syn 22.06.15 10:54

HKP wrote:@Syn. I was looking on a mobile device and it cut the image, apologies for the confusion.

No worries HKP :)

Right back to work for me :)

Laters all

by Guest 22.06.15 11:07

Richard D. Hall wrote:I would tend to agree. The screenshots from before they changed their system do not prove to me that mccann.html did not exist on 30 April 2007. What they show is that a different page, which had the same archive date (30 April) probably contained data from October 2007. People are inferring from this that mccann.html must also have contained data from October 2007. But I don't see that it automatically follows. It is down to WBM to explain why mccann.html had an archive date of 30 April 2007. They have not as far as I can see explained in detail how this was the case and until they do, it is feasable that mccann.html was archived on that date.

Richard you have to admit that at least some of the data in the 20070430 115803 folder was wrong... the home page at the very least.

This shows that the WBM is in error and logically infers that the other pages with that time stamp are not reliable.

I know why you are clinging to this, so was I, but I see these pages in that index can prove nothing.

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 11:11

It seems possible the home page yes, based on the screenshots. This may infer there was an issue with other files but does not prove it. We need an explanation as to why that file had that date from WMB.

by Guest 22.06.15 11:13

Richard D. Hall wrote:Infer but does not prove. We need an explanation as to why that file had that date.

Yes I would like an explanation too.

But the WBM has made at least one mistake for this timestamp, yes?

by **Richard D. Hall** 22.06.15 11:16

If the screenshots are valid. But looking at screenshots to diagnose an issue is like looking at the outside of your car to decide whether it is functioning ok. We need to look under the bonnet. Only WBM can do that.

What I am saying is there are many possible reasons why the index page showed October dates. Whatever the reason is, it may have nothing to do with the mccann.html file, and the initial archive date being held for that file may still be correct.

I await an explanation. And I also await an email reply from WBM (which I sent 5 days ago - that is if the date stamp on my outgoing email is correct).

by Latetothecase 22.06.15 11:49

It would be very interesting to know about cases where people have been convicted based on evidence from the WBM, as their much boasted usefulness 'every week' in legal cases claims. The potential can of worms in terms of compensation towards miscarriages of justice could be huge if they bow to pressure to say it was a mistake if it isn't.

by Lord Guest 22.06.15 11:57

A couple of questions, if i may, delete if u wish

1 - IF the the Apr30 mccann.html page now re-directs to the nearest mccann.html archive WHY is it NOW going to Apr27 ? That date has NO archive for the mccann.html page ?

2 - And why doesnt the date codes list July 27th in the original Apr30 mccann.html source code ?

3 - IF the mccann.html was archived on July 27th WHY is the second image (which was in place by May13th) broken ? Surely the MUCH later July archive would have the graphic in it and therefore it would have been resolved ?

Not buying it...delete the file, amend the database, claim incorrect, claim error, nothing to see here, move along please

Hi, by the way, been watching - keep it up