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

by SixMillionQuid 25.06.15 19:14

SixMillionQuid wrote:So Wayback did not archive the result of webcrawl of the CEOP website on 30 April 2007 with mccann.html as the filename?

If all mccann related web pages were created after this date then I'm struggling to understand how the Wayback machine 'invented' the 30 April 2007 archive date.

No takers then?

Why would the Wayback machine backdate a webcrawl back to the 30 April 2007?

by HKP 25.06.15 19:18

@SMQ. No takers because nobody has an answer other than 'it can't be right', and repeat a hundred times.

by cloak'ndagger 25.06.15 20:00

HKP wrote:@SMQ. No takers because nobody has an answer other than 'it can't be right', and repeat a hundred times.

The time has to be constant .It is a robot. It cannot crawl [grab] material relating to the future.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 20:14

The arguments more or less boils down to: the WBM captured a file that lacks any evidence whatsoever of ever having been captured [Oct. 23-24] and erroneously filed it away in a file that never existed in the first place. [April 30] dontgetit

by Nuala 25.06.15 20:16

@ PeterMac

Is there a reason why another archiving site would NOT record this.

It's hit and miss, not everything was crawled by some of the archives, particularly the further back you go.

@ Cloak'nDagger

The time has to be constant .It is a robot. It cannot crawl [grab] material relating to the future.

No, but it can grab material, store it, then add the wrong date when it's retrieved.

by HKP 25.06.15 20:28

@cloak'ndagger. The McCann. htm had no future material.

by SixMillionQuid 25.06.15 21:04

Nuala wrote:@ PeterMac

Is there a reason why another archiving site would NOT record this.

It's hit and miss, not everything was crawled by some of the archives, particularly the further back you go.

@ Cloak'nDagger

The time has to be constant .It is a robot. It cannot crawl [grab] material relating to the future.

No, but it can grab material, store it, then add the wrong date when it's retrieved.

So the first page Steve Marsden identified (mccann.html) had the wrong date when the record was retrieved i.e. the correct date is some other date after 30 April 2007?

by Nuala 25.06.15 21:29

@ SixMillionQuid

So the first page Steve Marsden identified (mccann.html) had the wrong date when the record was retrieved i.e. the correct date is some other date after 30 April 2007?

That's what Wayback says, and it's what I believe happened as well.

It just so happens that the crawl date span for that page is April 30th 2007 to Sep 4th 2009, so it appears to me that it erroneously defaulted to the first date in the span on retrieval.

by SixMillionQuid 25.06.15 21:42

Nuala wrote:@ SixMillionQuid

So the first page Steve Marsden identified (mccann.html) had the wrong date when the record was retrieved i.e. the correct date is some other date after 30 April 2007?

That's what Wayback says, and it's what I believe happened as well.

It just so happens that the crawl date span for that page is April 30th 2007 to Sep 4th 2009, so it appears to me that it erroneously defaulted to the first date in the span on retrieval.

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

So 20070430115803 in the URL is a retrieval datestamp? I thought it was the date the page was first archived.

by **Richard D. Hall** 25.06.15 22:02

Is there some sort of fanfare if the thread reaches 100 pages?

by Nuala 25.06.15 22:03

@ SixMillionQuid

So 20070430115803 in the URL is a retrieval datestamp? I thought it was the date the page was first archived.

The URL isn't created until and unless the page is retrieved. At that point the URL is created with a date corresponding to the date Wayback also adds to the HTML coding of the page itself.

That date is retrieved from Wayback's archive database (for want of a better word) and is supposed to represent the date Wayback's crawler crawled the page, but nothing is 100% perfect.

Indeed Wayback makes it clear that if the date of a page is important for legal reasons it is up to the person wanting that proof to prove it.

In other words, Wayback makes no claims for a date to be absolutely correct, none at all.

Which is hardly surprising. Software is only as good as those that program it, so there will always be times when it doesn't work properly. It's not some infallible thing that is never wrong.

As we all know smilie

by HKP 25.06.15 22:05

@SMS. It‘s the archive date, not retrieval

by HKP 25.06.15 22:08

Looks like we're moving into 485 billion questionable dates territory; laughable

by **PeterMac** 25.06.15 22:14

HKP wrote:Looks like we're moving into 485 billion questionable dates territory; laughable

It makes the "Date stamp" of 3/5/7 on the Last Photo 'LUDICROUS"
Everyone knows that was a forgery ! (Probably !)

by worriedmum 25.06.15 22:17

At the risk of appearing gormless here, can some-one please spell out to me , in non-technical language,what WBM say has happened and what the alternative possibilities are?

by HKP 25.06.15 22:24

@nuala. Archive.org will also:-

[size=31]The Internet Archive will provide printed pages and a standard affidavit of authenticity. [/size][size=31]We require five business days from receipt of payment to turn around most requests. Requests for especially large numbers of URLs may take longer or we may contact you and ask that you limit your request. Errors contained in your request will also delay the process. Please be patient so we can fix these errors for you. [/size]

by HKP 25.06.15 22:30

@PeterMac. It certainly appears that the McCanns and verifiable dates don't mix.

by Empty Chamber 25.06.15 22:32

Its kinda strange how all these monitored sites are starting to gel. Even Ghetto Monk on GLP has unbanned Alex Jones.
As you were.

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:37

Whodunnit - thanks.

I have found the 27 April 2007 ceop.gov.uk page archived on the website 'archive.is'. If you open it up for some reason it states 'redirected' from the 30 April 2007 date stamp - no idea why it would link back to this (I didn't input it at any stage).

One other thing which is bothering me - the jpeg images of MBM being used are filed as madeleine_01.jpg and madeleine_02.jpg. 01 is the 'young' photo and 02 is the 'tennis photo'. BUT as the 'young' photo was the only one showing on the original 30 April/13 May/22 May appeal pages I assumed this would be the one I would find with the 30 April date stamp, but I haven't found it with this date (yet). I have found this date stamp for the 'tennis' photo - work that one out. It would be interesting if anyone out there has the data for the appeal page with only the one photo i.e. from 17 June 2015.

Nothing makes sense including the 31 July and 7 October dates given by WBM. Apart from anything else (including news items being post 7 October) what are the chances that 2 separate misfiles would end up on the same date?

This extraordinary admission of misfiling by WBM must extrapolate out to thousands more mistakes - it can't be that the ceop site would be the only one singled out twice in 3 months.

by Nuala 25.06.15 22:39

@ HKP

The Internet Archive will provide printed pages and a standard affidavit of authenticity. We require five business days from receipt of payment to turn around most requests. Requests for especially large numbers of URLs may take longer or we may contact you and ask that you limit your request. Errors contained in your request will also delay the process. Please be patient so we can fix these errors for you.

Yes, but that says nothing about dates of pages, which is what we're interested in here, unless I've misunderstood why you posted that paragraph?

by HKP 25.06.15 22:43

@nuala. Authenticating the page means it was the exact content at the stated date otherwise what is there to authenticate?

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:49

Nuala Today at 9:29 pm
@ SixMillionQuid

So the first page Steve Marsden identified (mccann.html) had the wrong date when the record was retrieved i.e. the correct date is some other date after 30 April 2007?

That's what Wayback says, and it's what I believe happened as well.

It just so happens that the crawl date span for that page is April 30th 2007 to Sep 4th 2009, so it appears to me that it erroneously defaulted to the first date in the span on retrieval.

-----------------------------------------------------

HANG ON - Sorry, I'm losing the plot a bit. If it defaulted to the first page in the span on retrieval and the first page in the span was the 30 April 2007, your saying that the mccann.html 30 April page was in existence for it to default to. That answers everything doesn't it or is it past my bedtime?

by siobhan3443 25.06.15 22:51

Skyrocket1

it gives the 13/may date because it was searched and archived by archive.is after waybackmachine changed it. i know because i submitted it to be archived the other day - you can submit links to be archived. there was nothing archived on that site until i ran the page, waybackmachine had change the link before i ran it

a

by Skyrocket1 25.06.15 22:57

siobhan3443 Today at 10:51 pm
Skyrocket1

it gives the 13/may date because it was searched and archived by archive.is after waybackmachine changed it. i know because i submitted it to be archived the other day - you can submit links to be archived. there was nothing archived on that site until i ran the page, waybackmachine had change the link before i ran it

--------------------------------------------

Thanks Siobhan - but yours isn't the record I was talking about. There was one on there prior to yours which is dated the 27 April 2007. This is the one with the 803 link and I think it was already on there before all this blew up.

by HKP 25.06.15 22:59

@nuala. To counter my own affidavit argument if found this which means you were correct

Does the Internet Archive's affidavit mean that the printout was actually the page posted on the Web at the recorded time?
The Internet Archive's affidavit only affirms that the printed document is a true and correct copy of our records. It remains your burden to convince the finder of fact what pages were up when.
Seems a bit useless if you ask me!

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:00

@ HKP

Authenticating the page means it was the exact content at the stated date otherwise what is there to authenticate?

Okay, but note that if Wayback was authenticating mccann.html they would authenticate it with a date in July 2007, because they've said the 30th April 2007 date is incorrect.

by Nuala 25.06.15 23:11

@ HKP

Seems a bit useless if you ask me!

What seems to be missing from the debate, and not aiming this at you just generally, is that Wayback is a non-profit organisation trying to maintain an archive of web pages that have appeared on the Internet, since well . . . . way back.

It's like a museum, storing exhibits. It's not meant for legal cases, it's not what it was intended for, or designed for.

Because it is there, of course people have used it in legal cases, but it's not the job of Wayback to provide irrefutable proof that a certain web page contained certain information on a certain date.

So it's not useless, it's doing the job it intends to do and is designed to do. Any legal stuff is secondary and TBH almost certainly unwelcome by Wayback, though they do, of course, co-operate with legal cases if asked to do so.

by jack dexter 25.06.15 23:15

Cant believe that kate and gerry are not here with us looking for their daughter. Possible the biggest lead they may ever have and they are nowhere to be seen. Maybe they are working with wbm already,
I know i would be if it was my child.

by whodunnit 25.06.15 23:19

"Okay, but note that if Wayback was authenticating mccann.html they would authenticate it with a date in July 2007, because they've said the 30th April 2007 date is incorrect."

Which literally makes no sense. It amounts to panicked gibberish spouted by Mr. Butler after he was told in so many words "This is a high profile case, very sensitive, be careful how you reply". You just can't do that.

The April 30th, 2007 date can be independently authenticated in the code of both pages--homepage and mccann.html by the sequential previous/next date codes embedded in the redirected pages now extant on the WBM site. This authentication extends to the original screenshots of the mccann.html captures of the page and it's date code. In my opinion a judge or jury would have no trouble believing that mccann.html existed on April 30.

by HKP 25.06.15 23:22

@nuala. I meant the authentication is useless if they are not willing to stand by what they are giving you with a caveat of you need to further prove it yourself. I and many others know archive.org are non profit making, they provide a service, their data has of course been used in court of law and I'm sure they are actually proud of the integrity of their machine. As for they will now authenticate the McCann file as July, that is seriously flawed as well.

Latest topics