Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

Syn wrote:

siobhan3443 wrote:@syn thanks, that explains that and you called the subset

fair play, it proves your point!!!!

Thanks :)  I should have let people know what I'd done but I got distracted after and forgot oops!

In Edit meant to add that I added another this morning, something along the lines of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh yeah oops. Clever, and very disingenuous. Not a very high recommendation for your intentions.

Now back date it to January.

@whodunit. You've picked up the pertinent point, anybody can input a url as such but they can't go backwards therefore mccann . mtml needed to exist on or before 30/04/07 and Chris Butler's subset error doesn't apply.

HKP wrote:@whodunit. You've picked up the pertinent point, anybody can input a url as such but they can't go backwards therefore mccann . mtml needed to exist on or before 30/04/07 and Chris Butler's subset error doesn't apply.

I could update my webpage today (if I had one) and then add it to the WB Machine and it would give me an archived timestamp of today at X time.  The long and short crawl archiving process utilised by WB for picking up historical, even if historical only by a day webpages will be completely different, you can be sure of that so your point is irrelevant 

Anyway my point in adding the hongkongphooey page was to show that anyone can add webpages that do not exist and therefore results which show in WB Source Directory and the Calendar are of little value in trying to figure out what has happened with the CEOP website archiving issue.

Okay, this should put all this to bed once and for all.  It demonstrates my point that there is no correlation whatsoever between what is in the WB Source Directory (link provided by Dr Martin Roberts) and what can be seen in the WB Calendar and therefore any captured data for CEOP cannot be relied upon. Please ensure that you copy all the links in this post into WB or they will take you to the current [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] site.

This is a Press Release dated and posted on 18 Jun 2007 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and archived on 20 June 2007 (confirmed via archive.is source below but which redirects from 30 April 2007)  It appears correctly with an archive date of 20070620 on the Wayback calendar

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


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


Wayback calendar shows 16 captures for the above press release archive between 2007 and 2015:

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

2007
30 April 2007 (--> nearest archive 200607 as WB advised they removed all 300407 for now)

20 June 2007 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

29 June 2007 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

03 July 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

25 August 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

19 September 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

29 September 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

15 October 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

30 December 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2008
29 February 2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(page not found)

01 May 2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(page not found)

2009
16 October 2009
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(page not found)

2011
07 August 2011
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(redirects to new ceop.police.uk domain)

28 July 2011
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(redirects to new ceop.police.uk domain)

30 September 2011
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(redirects to new ceop.police.uk domain)

2015
02 April 2015
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
(page not found)

From the link to the WB Source Directory that Dr Martin Roberts is relying upon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and filtering the search for 20070618 we get the following captures:

28 in total

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

Which consist of:

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/(S(g3lnss45pzi43q45ngotn1mz))/news_items/article_20070618_ceop.htm

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2008 To Apr 30, 2008 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Jul 8, 2007 To Jul 8, 2007   Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007  Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007  Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007  Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Apr 30, 2007 To Apr 30, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Jun 29, 2007 To Jun 29, 2007  Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Jul 6, 2007 To Jul 6, 2007 Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From Sep 19, 2007 To Sep 19, 2007  Captures 1 Duplicates 0 Uniques 1 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 ----------
Between Apr 30, 2007 and Apr 2, 2015 Captures 16 Duplicates 9 Uniques 7
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Okay so let us compare captures on the WB calendar for 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the full * WB captures link from WB  Source Directory [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Results filtered to only return results for 20070618.

What do we find?

The WB Source Directory is missing captures for the following which all show on the WB calendar for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

3 July 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

20 Jun 2007 (the first actual date that this article was archived) (Missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
These screenshots are from archive.is website which uses Wayback Machine as it's data source and shows that the 20070618 press release was indeed captured on 20070620 2 days later but for some reason directs to 20070430 (our erroneous date) It shows its correctly captured date of 20070620 on the WB calendar but is missing from  WB Source Directory [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

25 June 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

25 August 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

29 September 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

15 October 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

30 December 2007 (missing from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The only captures we see in the WB Source Directoty [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] filtered to 20070618 that are NOT 20070430  are:

29 June 2007 which DOES show in the WB calendar

06 July 2007 which DOESN'T show in the WB calendar

08 July 2007 which DOESN'T show in the wayback calendar

19 September 2007 which DOES show in the WB calendar

02 April 2015 which DOES show in the WB calendar

All the rest are for 30 April 2007...

So where are the following captures in the WB Source directory which do show on the WB calendar?

3 July 2007
20 Jun 2007 (the first actual date that this article was archived as evidenced above in the archive.is screenshot showing a redirect from 30 April 2007)
29 June 2007
25 August 2007
29 September 2007
15 October 2007
30 December 2007

They all appear on the WB calendar so why don't they appear in the WB Source Directory?

And..... where are the captures from the calendar for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from 2008, 2009, 2011?

They are simply not there.

I'd say that all the missing captures above are the ones showing as 30 April 2007 and issue that WB has said that it has had with subsets..

So we have captured archives which appear on the calendar for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which DO NOT
appear on the WB Source Directory filtered to 20070618? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And we have captured archives which DO appear in the WB Directory [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which DO NOT appear on the calendar

Hmmmm.......

This next image is  for 2007 only but you get the idea, it will be most likely be the same story for 2008, 2009, and 2011 

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

All of the above is clear evidence that this archive [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is totally screwed and the information between the two WB sources clearly do not tally and I am certain that if I was to do the same exercise with any of the other circa 3K CEOP archives dated 20070430  we would see the same discrepancies between what is showing on the WB calendar  and what is in the WB Source Directory 

Conclusion: The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon.

Syn Today at 6:33 pm

"Conclusion: The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon."

Some people have been saying that since the "stevo story" broke.

Syn wrote:

Conclusion: The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon.

You forgot the 'Thank you my Lord' at the end...

But of course all the evidence is not in yet:

"Resistor on Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:38 am
I'm going to put a long letter together to WB (they are clearly not responding to e-mails). It will be tomorrow at the earliest (I don't have time to do it today). I will write it on company headed notepaper and use my personal credentials. And I will ask specific, technical questions about the WB machine and how it works, not mentioning any specific sites in particular. Maybe if they receive a calm, polite, technical enquiry, they might just respond."

Such dreadful distraction! 

Just read Dr Martin Roberts Monday comments if anyone is interested in true facts.

@syn. It's obviously taken some time for you to put together that post and I will take some time to consider the contents (won't be tonight I don't have that much time). Personally I've seen all those duplications and the 'future' news items appearing within 30/04/07 so you are not telling us anything new there. I don't remember anybody stating that the calendar and the source directory were fully in sync however your pointing out that they are, not arguing at this point in time, it should however be remembered that the source directory uses date ranges and single 'crawl dates' therefore not all will perhaps show. Can't say I'm too interested in the calendar. Given that you now say that any ceop arcgive date can't be relied upon (sweeping incorrect statement, but hey it makes you sound good) why do you think this only affects ceop (and coincidently a beauty of a date for the mccanns) and not others, Yahoo was crawled at 10:13 and  Amazon at 10:40 in 39/04/07 with no reported issues so we know that the crawler was in operation on 30/04/07 (it must have been Gerry ordering photo paper for that printer that sent the crawler wonky). So to quickly sum up for the moment you can demonstrate that there are files that don't belong (WBM does state the reconstruction looks forward and back if there's nothing on that particular day etc.), but we knew that already and there is a calendar and url repetition (which I did post about, so nothing new) problem. What you can't demonstrate is that there was no mccann . html url on 30/04/07 and furthermore add Madeleine 01 & 02 jpg's which you conveniently forgot. I think you are dancing around your handbag.

@syn. That should have read calendar and source data out of sync and also the date can't be 39/04 obviously

@Richard Henshaw.

Spot on

With that I'll leave you people tonight to debate further

whodunnit wrote:I can't wait! I'm sure he won't mind:
~~~~


A major cause of ideological schism in this debate is, I believe, peoples' misunderstanding of what it means to save a 'page'.

The moment the word is mentioned most will instinctively think of a rectangular area occupied by text and pictures, i.e. a page as typically viewed. What is perhaps not properly understood by all is that, as far as the WBM is concerned, a page is no more than a piece of code returned by the crawler in respect of a unique URL it has just encountered.

In all probability said 'page' will be represented by (and henceforward identified with) a surprisingly modest alpha-numeric sequence. Once that is in place then the 'page' can be considered as having been archived on whatever date it is that that specific transaction involving the crawler occurred.

The rest of the details (again nothing but data or pointers to data) are streamed in as the on-line traffic permits. (I know electricity and gas are NOT delivered in this way, but just imagine a row of houses, each subscribing to a different supplier and waiting for THEIR particular units of fuel to appear within the constant stream of randomly distributed clumps sent down the pipe by British Gas, SSE, E.ON, etc.).

Later, when a 'page' is required in respect of a given date, the initiating data FOR THAT DATE are first recovered, followed by all of the other relevant bits and pieces. Should it not be possible to re-construct the original from entirely contemporaneous elements, for whatever reason, the WBM searches back and forth until it finds a suitable replacement, patches it in, and considers it dated as per the page requested.

I wish I'd thought of it earlier, but a perfect descriptive analogy is that of the London Stock Exchange of the early 70s (a decade and more before the advent of desk-top computers). Transactions were a genuine paper chase back then.

A Broker might strike a bargain on behalf of a client, but then have to wait days (sometimes weeks) before sufficient stock transfers were delivered to meet it. However long it took to construct the total number of shares required for re-registration on the client's behalf, the date of the purchase bargain was immutable, and it would be that aspect one would use to locate any discussion of the process, not the intermittent arrival of transfers from elsewhere (unless of course the discussion concerned those transfers explicitly).

Whatever else one might say about the WBM, the dating of its pages (as understood by IT and NOT as seen by the viewer) is, ipso facto, the most robust of its procedures. Where we have a page whose principal compositional element is a banner incorporating simple text (not the convoluted graphical or other contents of some remote file called to cough up its contents) - simple text that would be quickly written, being hard-wired within the source code for the page in question, then we may be confident that those 'early bird' aspects of the complete data set were indeed contemporaneous captures.

And if said banner should read 'Madeleine McCann'?

Well it does. So we have a page ('McCann.html) archived on 30 April 2007 which, when replayed, reads Madeleine McCann, without invoking any futuristic data capture whatsoever - this coupled with a pair of images that were also reportedly archived on that same date, albeit as individual items in their own right.

Can we hope to get any nearer a 'Slam dunk!' than that, I ask?

Kind regards

Martin R.

1 July 2015 at 01:19

Just dropping this back in in case anyone missed it.

XXXXXXXX wrote:Syn Today at 6:33 pm

"Conclusion: The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon."

Some people have been saying that since the "stevo story" broke.

Exactly!  I really do not know why there are people trying to fit square pegs into round holes.  They want this to be conclusive proof that it was all a CEOP/McCann setup but it isn't but I know and understand why they want it to be the case.  But all this is simply a WB screw up and I don't doubt for a second that a great many other sites were affected at times due to the same subset issues back them.  Identifying them is another matter and pretty much impossible unless you have what we have in this case, a point of reference ie 03052007 to measure by.

People have to be patient, Op Grange are not daft despite what the naysayers say, they know what's what and have consulted with other cadaver/CSI dog handlers hence why we saw 4 Welsh dogs, but only 2 of them in the public eye via MSM during the digs back in June 2014. Call them and ask them if they have researched cadaver scent and if they have consulted with dog handlers.  I did.

They have not spoken to Martin though which frustrates him but the fact Op G have consulted other dpg handlers means Op G do hold store in what what Eddie and Keela found.  IMO the other two Welsh  dogs missing from MSM reporting were back in 5a validating E & K's findings.

Those who subscribe to Stevo's and Dr Martin Roberts' theory that the Wayback archive for 30 April 2007 is correct and won't hear otherwise despite conclusive evidence to the contrary do Madeleine no favours and will not get justice for her.  

Think about it please.  If all this was a stitch up, we would have seen dead paedophile Raymond Hewlett fitted up for this within 6 months of  Op G going from a review to full investigation, wouldn't we?

Whilst so many, including me ,are chewing the cud over this obvious WB screw up, what is forgotten is putting the pros and Joe public right re the facts in the McCann case,  as is the fund for Snr Amaral to stand his corner in the appeal in the Lisbon damages case against the McCanns.

Why has this Stevo not taken up the invitation extended to him by the Mods on this forum to come here and comment?

Doubter wrote:

Syn wrote:

Conclusion: The capture date for any CEOP archive dated any date never mind 30 April 2007 simply just cannot be relied upon.

You forgot the 'Thank you my Lord' at the end...

Look me up, I have no affinity with CEOP despite what you are alluding.  I simply seek truth and justice for little Madeleine Beth McCann.

@ Syn

Those who subscribe to Stevo's and Dr Martin Roberts' theory that the Wayback archive for 30 April 2007 is correct and won't hear otherwise despite conclusive evidence to the contrary do Madeleine no favours and will not get justice for her. 

Think about it please.  If all this was a stitch up, we would have seen dead paedophile Raymond Hewlett fitted up for this within 6 months of  Op G going from a review to full investigation, wouldn't we?

Whilst so many, including me ,are chewing the cud over this obvious WB screw up, what is forgotten is putting the pros and Joe public right re the facts in the McCann case,  as is the fund for Snr Amaral to stand his corner in the appeal in the Lisbon damages case against the McCanns.

Well said. Agree with all of that 

Richard Henshaw wrote:Such dreadful distraction! 

Just read Dr Martin Roberts Monday comments if anyone is interested in true facts.

Dr Roberts is clearly an intelligent man and has made much sense previously re other McCann related anomalies but he really is reading too much into this WB 20070430 anomaly.  I  and others have proved that his reliance on the WB Source Directory is pointless further up this thread.

You call my post a distraction. Please refute anything in what I posted that is incorrect :)

I look forward to your response :)

Nuala wrote:@ Syn

Those who subscribe to Stevo's and Dr Martin Roberts' theory that the Wayback archive for 30 April 2007 is correct and won't hear otherwise despite conclusive evidence to the contrary do Madeleine no favours and will not get justice for her. 

Think about it please.  If all this was a stitch up, we would have seen dead paedophile Raymond Hewlett fitted up for this within 6 months of  Op G going from a review to full investigation, wouldn't we?

Whilst so many, including me ,are chewing the cud over this obvious WB screw up, what is forgotten is putting the pros and Joe public right re the facts in the McCann case,  as is the fund for Snr Amaral to stand his corner in the appeal in the Lisbon damages case against the McCanns.

Well said. Agree with all of that 

Thanks Nuala :)  Tis like pulling teeth getting through to the majority but hopefully common sense will prevail eventually :)

I do understand why so many want this to be true.  It would, if true, confirm what a great many of us think, that what happened to Madeleine  in PDL is far from an abduction  But it does not. When I first saw posts on twitter re all this, I thought, Bingo, we gotcha!  But then, I, like you and a few others looked into it this claim by Stevo that CEOP had a hand in some premeditated plot and realised that all was not what it first seemed based on conclusive evidence of a WB screw up. Op G/Oporto will come through, not as soon as we wanted but they will :)

Tony Bennett wrote:

Syn wrote:Problem with subsets says Chris Butler....

.... that brings us right back to the beginning where I posted this on 17th June when this merry go round first started.

I have now underlined the relevant part

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

Can you please help us on this?

Given that you agree (I think) with Christopher Butler that

(a) there was no 'mcmann.html' page, orphan or otherwise, on the CEOP website on 30 April, and that

(b) there has been a 'subset error' (which the above report 'deprecates') of some kind that has given this 'false' reading...

1. how many hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of Wayback records are false because of this faulty subset, and

2. when did Wayback discover this 'subset error', and

3. over what period did this subset error persist?

TIA

@ Syn  Thank you very much for your input on this thread.

Would you be kind enough please to give us your opinion on these three questions I asked a few pages back - thanks very much

@ Syn

Tis like pulling teeth getting through to the majority but hopefully common sense will prevail eventually :)

Hopefully. And thanks for all your input, you explain it all much better than me

I do understand why so many want this to be true., it would, if true, confirm what a great many of us think, that what happened to Madeleine  in PDL is far from an abduction Sad But it does not. When I first saw posts on twitter re all this, I thought, Bingo, we gotcha!  But then, I, like you and a few others looked into it this claim by Stevo that CEOP had a hand in some premeditated plot and realised that all was not what it first seemed based on conclusive evidence of a WB screw up.

Again, I agree with you. What matters is the truth, not what people want to be the truth. At first this Wayback thing appeared to be an important breakthrough, but it's obviously not. The Wayback data is screwed.

Op G/Oporto will come through, not as soon as we wanted but they will :)

Yes they will. The silence from that quarter is deafening

@ Tony Bennett

1. how many hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of Wayback records are false because of this faulty subset, and
2. when did Wayback discover this 'subset error', and
3. over what period did this subset error persist?

Those were the questions you asked, and I'm not Syn (obviously) and wouldn't presume to answer for her, but I don't know why you would think she would know the answer to those questions?

They are questions more properly aimed at Wayback, who won't answer them of course, but I don't know why you would expect Syn to know the answers
.
I'm also struggling to see the relevance of those questions, except from a "we would all like to know" point of view. The questions have no bearing on whether or not the Wayback data is correct as regards mccann.html. It is incorrect, and whatever else (unrelated) might be affected in the same way is of no consequence.

Big hello to Syn formerly known here as Atomic Peanut and on MMM as Chop Suey on Toast.
How much do they pay you,as you do put in a lot of hours for them?

followed the 1st 100 pages in earnest.  Made the next 50 so much easier once I created an impression of who's who.  Disrupters, after a while become pretty obvious.  Thanks to those who work so hard to keep this forum going, it must be soul destroying in the face of such constant disruption, still, it means you are on the right track!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Syn wrote:Problem with subsets says Chris Butler....

.... that brings us right back to the beginning where I posted this on 17th June when this merry go round first started.

I have now underlined the relevant part

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

Can you please help us on this?

Given that you agree (I think) with Christopher Butler that

(a) there was no 'mcmann.html' page, orphan or otherwise, on the CEOP website on 30 April, and that

(b) there has been a 'subset error' (which the above report 'deprecates') of some kind that has given this 'false' reading...

1. how many hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of Wayback records are false because of this faulty subset, and

2. when did Wayback discover this 'subset error', and

3. over what period did this subset error persist?

TIA

I shall try and help :)

1. how many hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of Wayback records are false because of this faulty subset

I have no idea, what makes you think that I would know?  What I can be logically sure of  is that it will not be specific to just 20070430 archives. Millions of pages crawled and archived on 20070430 and many other dates will have been archived incorrectly I'm sure. However, the millions affected will be a tiny, tiny percentage give how many website WB crawls each year.  There is no way to ascertain how many of the millions of websites out there in 2007 and probably prior and beyond 2007 which were crawled and archived by WB had pdf links, flash player, needed server side verification for SSIs etc are out there that may be incorrect due to the claimed subset issue.  Wayback are not going to tell us which other sites were affected and identifying similarly affected websites would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack for us mere mortals.  We are only able to identify an anomaly with the CEOP pages because we have an identifier of 20070503 as the date that it is claimed that Madeleine went missing. Therefore with this point of reference it is possible to cross reference any archived content. If you have any idea how to identify any other website that may have been similarly affected regardless of date, please do let me know as I cannot fathom any. There is no point in saying ohh Amazon or the BBC was archived on 20070430 with no problem at all as they may not have had any pdf links, flash content or server side SSIs or anything else that may have made archiving a website go squewiffy once WB appended their server side javascript to a subset of the pages html.  Not looked but chances are that Amazon. BBC webpages etc were not using simple HTML but were using php, ruby on rails, asp etc back then to dynamically generate relevant html content and will have been unaffected.

2. when did Wayback discover this 'subset error'

Again, I have no idea, I simply found info re Wayback Machine/archive.org that explains the issue that they have had/may still be having regarding inserting/appended javascript into html pages which contain pdfs, flash etc and their acknowledgement that such a process is not the most efficient and issues regarding timestamps and rendering of data can occur and why they deprecate and would ideally wish to discontinue utilising said processes.   Many webpages will have been archived correctly and as much as a great many webpages may have been affected by a similar timestamp subset issue, many millions more will be perfectly fine.

3. over what period did this subset error persist?

I have no idea.  It would seem that it has been an ongoing issue since implementation.

Nuala wrote:@ Syn

Tis like pulling teeth getting through to the majority but hopefully common sense will prevail eventually :)

Hopefully. And thanks for all your input, you explain it all much better than me

I do understand why so many want this to be true., it would, if true, confirm what a great many of us think, that what happened to Madeleine  in PDL is far from an abduction Sad But it does not. When I first saw posts on twitter re all this, I thought, Bingo, we gotcha!  But then, I, like you and a few others looked into it this claim by Stevo that CEOP had a hand in some premeditated plot and realised that all was not what it first seemed based on conclusive evidence of a WB screw up.

Again, I agree with you. What matters is the truth, not what people want to be the truth. At first this Wayback thing appeared to be an important breakthrough, but it's obviously not. The Wayback data is screwed.

Op G/Oporto will come through, not as soon as we wanted but they will :)

Yes they will. The silence from that quarter is deafening

Isn't it just re Op G/Oporto! 

Thank you for your input too :) Have to say that you are far more eloquent than me in explaining what's what :) I wish I wasn't a rather verbose 'why use 20 words when you can use 200' kinda gal but that's me lol

bhobby wrote:Big hello to Syn, formerly known here as Atomic Peanut and on MMM as Chop Suey on Toast.

How much do they pay you, as you do put in a lot of hours for them?

Whaaaaatt?@*!!*@!??

Surely not.

Atomic Peanut was rightly banned last year for, and I quote:

"Persistently misleading forum members by presenting claims as 'fact' when they are clearly not".

I think forum members would want to know if 'Syn' was masquerading here as 'Atomic Peanut' previously.

What's your evidence for this?

bhobby wrote:Big hello to Syn formerly known here as Atomic Peanut and on MMM as Chop Suey on Toast.
How much do they pay you,as you do put in a lot of hours for them?

You are so wrong it is hilarious   but do carry on in your own little fantasy world. 
I have many people who can vouch for me being exactly who I say I am, can you? :)