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

by Claire25 07.07.15 0:22

Apologies if this has already been discussed, struggling to keep up with this thread.. Is this date/time on 30th April GMT? WM is American isn't it, so would that time be too? Thanks in advance

by **Tony Bennett** 07.07.15 0:47

Nuala wrote:Tony, yes it takes a while to load, but now you're on the correct page.

4. When all the pages had been displayed, to my surprise the first line (and other early lines) on page 1 had changed completely and there was now some other entry for (I think) 3 April 2005 on the first l ine. I don't know why these early lines changed

That's just Wayback updating.

5. When I got to page 2 out of the 176 pages, I noted that every entry said '30 April 2007'. I clicked on page 3, then 4, and so on. Every entry was again: '30 April 2007'. I went on doing this until page 15 and it was all the same, every page filled with a dozen or couple of dozen entries all reading '30 April 2007'.

Was this what I was meant to see?

Yes.

I cannot for the life of me make head nor tail of these 176 pages and why so many entries are dated 30 April 2007. It looks like an awful lot of dates that are wrong if Wayback are telling us that they crawled all these links on the one day (30 April).

Yes, it's an awful lot of dates that are wrong.

I am quite happy to be told that my questions are irrelevant, if they are irrelevant, but I think you'll first have to help me understand what you wanted me to see and understand on that link.

You're seeing exactly what is there, and that's what it's important you see. The data is screwed.

I am assuming for now that Wayback has made an utter botch of trawling the CEOP page and has got hundreds of entries with totally the wrong date (30 April 2007). Am I right?

Yes, you're right.

Where on those 176 pages can I find the 'mccann.html' page with the old photo of Madeleine on it?

Apologies, but it's very late and I've had a long day. Without checking I'd have to say it will no longer be there because Wayback has been correcting it's error. But I will check again tomorrow and clarify.

If you want to specifically search though just type mccann.html in the search box on the page and Wayback will give you the URLs for that and you can see what Wayback currently has.

I am grateful for your answers

by **sharonl** 07.07.15 7:57

Putting aside all the technical analysis that many of us do not understand or have sufficient knowledge of, we have this post by Dr Martin Roberts which is much more understandable. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What do you make of this Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 07.07.15 8:23

sharonl wrote:Putting aside all the technical analysis that many of us do not understand or have sufficient knowledge of, we have this post by Dr Martin Roberts which is much more understandable. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What do you make of this Tony?

I read this and Dr Martin Roberts' other article on the same subject a few days ago.

We now have an apparently irreconcilable conflict of opinion amongst experts on this subject.

Those who assert that the 30 April 'capture' by Wayback was a genuine capture of a dummy Madeleine McCann page being prepared on 30 April 2007 include:

Dr Martin Roberts
Richard D. Hall
Steve Marsden ('Stevo')
Resistor (from another place)
Hongkong Phooey (from another place)

Those who say it was a 'glitch' include:

Lizzy HideHo Taylor
Syn
Nuala
Blue Bag.

If we look at the poll here on CMOMM on Wayback, 16 out of the 42 who have voted say the arguments are too technical to comprehend, which leaves 26 who do have an opinion one way or another. At present,

17 agree with Dr Martin Roberts & co
7 agree with Lizzy Hideho Taylor & co, and
2 are unsure.

I think Nuala has, last night (and in previous posts), put up a credible argument that there was a massive 'glitch' on Wayback which caused literally hundreds, if not thousands, of searches of the CEOP website to send back a false 'crawl' date of 30 April 2007. (What I don't yet know is if there were any other massive Wayback glitches affecting either the CEOP or indeed any other websites for dates apart from 30 April 2007 - maybe someone can tell us?)

I am waiting to see if anyone who has a contrary argument can defeat Nuala's argument

by Mo 07.07.15 8:59

I don't think we will ever know the truth Tony because Wayback are now manipulating the pages so it's pointless looking at them - although I never did because I'm not technically minded. I have followed this from day one and can see three different camps.
1. Those with an open mind
2. Those who follow the Textusa theory - if the 30th April was correct it throws Textusa theory right out of the water.
3. Those who see the significance of the 30th - the avoidence of the Tapas group mentioning the Monday in their statements and Robert Murat flying to Portugal at short notice.
I personally have no theory on the matter but to say keep it simple!

by Angelique 07.07.15 9:05

I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"

ETA My antenna is bleeping. If this page is real then this thing is huge!

by jozi 07.07.15 10:10

Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"

I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!

by Mo 07.07.15 12:38

Those pesky guys at the Archive.org,things going along nicely then bam…. 30/04 the bonkers machine goes into overdrive eh!

28/04/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070428022938[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070428022942[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070428022946[/url] /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070428022950[/url] /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/images/reportnext.gif
[url=tel]20070428142006[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

29/04/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070429115020[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115032[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115048[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115048[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115049[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115049[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115051[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115051[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115052[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115053[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429115109[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429141559[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070429141600[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

30/04/07 at 11:58 03 3786 Urls (582 for ceop_report alone)

01/05/07 Not much happening here then……… (just over 15 hours later)
[url=tel]20070501151113[/url] /robots.txt
[url=tel]20070501151114[/url] /what_we_do.asp

02/05/07 Not much happening here then…….
[url=tel]20070502070550[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070502070606[/url] /get_advice_what_is_grooming.html
[url=tel]20070502191317[/url] /(S(2x40ol55kwvfjqaezv0noaes))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070502191317[/url] /(S(jngw3t550tsn24f3qsh3pj45))/ceop_report.aspx
[url=tel]20070502195551[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[url=tel]20070502195557[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh , and by the way Mr Butler, there were no crawls of Ceop on the 31/07/07 as claimed by your letter, here’s what the data said from a few days ago….

[url=tel]20070430115803[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070513020901[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070520033832[/url] /(S(ii5hcne2ycfqpq45bo0yzr55))/mccann.html
[url=tel]20070522035225[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070613040605[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070706183353[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070708201551[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070713232146[/url] /mccann.html
[url=tel]20070824232043[/url] /mccann.html

If someone could post on cmomm I'd be obliged (there is some rot getting discussed there at the moment)

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

The rot is the statements that 30/04 captures are all wrong, we don't know that, in fact because of the statements from archive.org I'd say the chances are that there are some correct URLs and some incorrect. Look at the data in the days surrounding, no errors as such, then look at the trend captures made on 30/04 in 2006, 2007 & 2008. Conclusion is there was a crawl made on 30/04/07
what exactly it captured is the debate, some say all data is invalid others like myself say no it's not. Looking at just pure data, something smells around mccann. html & madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs

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

Page 9 of 10 • [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]9[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

by rustyjames 07.07.15 13:57

rustyjames wrote:
I don't believe that number of URLs were captured in a single second from a single site. To capture 3786 in 1 second then the average response time would be under 300 microseconds. To achieve that many you would have to have multiple servers with multiple threads all co-ordinated to go to ceop and the codexgeo site, (which has an even more extreme hit rate), at the same time. I'm certain WBM spreads the load, but I'm equally certain it doesn't work in such a co-ordinated fashion. I also highly doubt the ceop site, and even less so the codexgeo site, was sized to serve that many hits a second. There is then also the matter of the "captures" on that date containing references to news articles in the future.

I'm fairly sure it must be an indexing issue but I'm at a loss to explain what could have caused it, whether it is a fault, or maybe even a feature to place a "stake in the ground" at a point in time.

The CDX records provide a lot more detail, but they still don't show everything in the records. A key part of the index contain a link to the source .(w)arc file that contains the original data, and the offset in that file to locate the data, but the WBM API doesn't supply that information in the public API response. The content of those files I would believe a lot more trust in and I assume they must be written to sequentially.

@Tony - with regard to your question on glitch vs genuine......

Sorry to quote my own post, but from the above my view errs towards the info we are analysing being a "glitch". And it doesn't exist just for ceop.gov.uk; for codexgeo.co.uk, (a tiny former software solution company for Earth Sciences), it is even more extreme - 16033 entries in that 1 second window, (cf. worldwide Twitter currently handles around 6000 tweets a second or Google handles around 60,000 searches a second).

However the glitch is in the index which is all we have to analyse in detail - either directly, or via the resulting pages that WBM use it to serve up. We don't know how the index might have been modified and without the source data files that were indexed it's near impossible to make definitive statements - for example if we consider the index entry for a future news article to obviously be wrong, then there is no way we can make any assumptions about the mccann.html file unless it explicitly contained something that dated it as the news articles do.

Now if the additional index info, (that we are not party to), pointed to an .arc file, (that we are also not party to), that contained the mccann.html page's data, and that .arc file was from the 30th April and everything else in that file was contemporaneous, then that would be a very different matter, especially if things such as the news articles were also in appropriate source archive files.

I'm sure the Internet Archive could do all sorts of extra investigations, but as they make clear in some of the other comments posted in this thread, they are a small non-profit organisation whose focus is capturing and archiving electronic data for posterity, as so much information these days is transient, so as frustrating as it is I can fully understand their stance.

by Angelique 07.07.15 14:49

jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!

Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!

by Mo 07.07.15 16:47

HKP wrote:

Well just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water, splash!!!!!!
2007 certainly was a busy year for wayback / ceop 65% of all captures since 2005 were completed in 2007.

Anybody notice anything with these monthly captures? What happened in September I wonder!!!!!!

Jan 731
Feb 526
Mar 238
Apr 3936
May 461
Jun 698
July 689
Aug 1101
Sept 3657
Oct 896
Nov 40
Dec 163

What was that saying again about coincidences Kate?

If someone would do me the honour of posting on cmomm I'd be mighty greatful [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:03

whodunit wrote:CEOP homepage capture April 27, 2007

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

mccann.html capture dated May 13, 2007

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

CEOP homepage capture May 14, 2007.^^^^

I'm not really sure what goes on with the index, but if I had to guess---perfectly permissible since Nuala is also guessing---I'd say that WBM tampering with and 're-indexing' the captures on this specific date over the last couple of weeks has caused it to go haywire.

What is not at issue, the thing that has not changed since this whole thing started is the embedded coding. If you dig around Steve Marsden's posts at FB you can find his downloaded coding for the original April 30 page that ignited this controversy. At the moment I cannot find it, but within that coding, under the 'Next/Previous Capture' heading you will find this text "You are Here: 11:58:03 April 30, 2007".

Now look at the caps I made of the same codes embedded in the pages that remain after the great re-shuffling. Both for the CEOP homepage and for mccann.html, April 30, 2007 is sitting right where you would expect to find it if the capture is true and correct. It is indeed the NEXT homepage capture after April 27 and the PREVIOUS capture to May 13. As for mccann.html, we find April 30, 2007 as the capture PREVIOUS to the extant May 14 capture.

If the April 30 capture is out of place in the contiguous sequences of captures you would expect to find evidence of this in the coding. We do not.

by HelenMeg 07.07.15 17:04

Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!

I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion

by cloak'ndagger 07.07.15 17:09

HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion

Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.

by jeanmonroe 07.07.15 17:25

And if you 'thought' a computer/crawly thing could 'capture' an 'event/page', say, on 29 October, 2013, and 'think' 'now, WHERE will i store/archive this'?

thinking

"Ah, i know, there's a folder/archive, dated 5th March, 2001, i'll 'stick' it THERE'!

Then THINK again, people!

Computers DO, what they are TOLD, programmed, to DO!

If a 'capture' is made on 7th September, 2009, then 'that' is put in the 7th September, 2009 'archive'

WHERE, we can 'find' it.

ps: I 'think' laughat

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:34

@HelenMeg---"I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion"

I can't agree. Any discussion of evidence which supports an alternate view of the crime, one which severely contradicts the official pronouncements of TM, can only help Amaral. Discussions like these push the consensus among the general population to become more aligned with Mr. Amaral.

by Guest 07.07.15 17:36

cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion
Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.

Çloak'ndagger, are you a friend/acquainted/connected to S. Marsden? You did say recently that he would be posting here to explain a few things. Still no sign of him though.

by whodunit 07.07.15 17:37

@jeanmonroe--"If a 'capture' is made on 7th September, 2009, then 'that' is put in the 7th September, 2009 'archive'

WHERE, we can 'find' it. ps: I 'think"

Of course it does! Otherwise what is the point this archive?

by cloak'ndagger 07.07.15 17:55

Ladyinred wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Angelique wrote:
jozi wrote:
Angelique wrote:I know absolutely nothing about IT I can't even run my Mac without help so this is only my opinion having read all the threads and "onlyinamerica" and the posts by Dr. Roberts who I have to say convinces me that something is wrong, but we don't know for sure what is wrong.

Is it possible that all the articles dated incorrectly were placed with the CEOP page to obscure/hide/camouflage it?

As far as I can tell once captured by the WBM it's there forever but if China can hack the Pentagon 14 times then anything can be hacked.

ETA Just to clarify I mean "as in if all those captures are wrong then so is the CEOP page for Missing Madeleine"
I too feel like you so am following and not contributing as I am not techi either.....what I would like to know though if it is a glitch then why has it captured it on the 30th April (How can it put it into a file before it was ever on the net in the first place )???

What if somebody put the wrong date on the file knowing it would cause this or am I being realy blonde here ?!!!!!
Hi jozi

No I don't believe you are "being blonde" - I think this is also a possibility. In fact, I think this is what Textusa thinks too!
I have said a number of times that I feel this could very well have been intended as a huge distraction - and it worked. Took us away from Amaral's fund and appeal and whatever else.
Team Mc Cann are well known for using distractions / red herrings / confusion
Neither Steve Marsden or myself are connected to Team Mc Cann . Steve made this discovery when he was researching something else. .To suggest otherwise is in Clarrie's words ludicrous and unhelpful. I am sure Jill Havern will vouch for Steve as she has done elsewhere on this thread.
Çloak'ndagger, are you a friend/acquainted/connected to S. Marsden? You did say recently that he would be posting here to explain a few things. Still no sign of him though.

Yes I am co admin with Steve. He has been too busy to post much . As far as he is concerned it is Q.E.D as regards the WBM capturing the CEOP on April30th .. I did think he would have something further to add but so far he does not appear to have. .

by suzysu 07.07.15 21:24

Is it over-simplifying the matter to suggest that the original search of the WBM was truthful ie there was a CEOP page captured on 30th April that showed MBM's disappearance, and that since then WBM has been busily - without any transparent explanation to suggest otherwise - obfuscating that record?

Or am I wrong?

by Syn 07.07.15 21:40

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

As a non-techie, what arguments from Whodunit persuaded you that these captures were also correct:

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

Because if the mccann.html capture was correct, then those are correct as well, along with the thousands of other CEOP website examples also given the same 30 Apr 2007 date and time.

The above examples are only a tiny sample of the masses of news articles given a date of 30 Apr 2007, when the said articles hadn't even been published on that date. Note that the date of the articles is the date CEOP gave them when they published them, so 20070810 isn't a date from Wayback, it's a date from CEOP.

CEOP dated them 20070810 and when Wayback archived them it gave them a date of 30 Apr 2007.

I think you would agree that it's impossible for an article dated 20070810 and therefore not even in existence on 30 Apr 2007 to have been crawled by Wayback and correctly dated on 30 Apr 2007.

I think even a non-techie can see that.

So can you tell me what persuaded you that those news articles are in fact correctly dated as being in existence on 30 Apr 2007?
I follow your argument - and, speaking as a non-tecchie, if neither whodunit nor anyone else can supply a good answer to your point, I would declare:

'Advantage Nuala'
Sorry but why do those four links quoted take you directly to the ceop page? Where are the Wayback archived versions?

Original Press Release dated and uploaded by CEOP on 20070810:

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

Here are the 4 Wayback Source Directory links claiming a 20070430 archive date that Nuala was talking about:

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

Here they are in the Wayback Calendar - 4 entries archived between 27th August and February 9th 2008

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

All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims.

by suzysu 07.07.15 21:58

@Syn ".....All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims."

I'm sure it's maddening to you, as a techie, to have to deal with non-tech questions, but don't you find it ODD that an organisation as otherwise-credible as WBM hasn't come out publicly with an explanation?

by Syn 07.07.15 22:09

suzysu wrote:@Syn ".....All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims."

I'm sure it's maddening to you, as a techie, to have to deal with non-tech questions, but don't you find it ODD that an organisation as otherwise-credible as WBM hasn't come out publicly with an explanation?

No not maddening at all suzysu :) And no I don't find it odd at all. They are a non profit organisation who do not have to explain anything to anyone. They have had the decency to let us know that after further investigation the urls in question were archived incorrectly due to a subset issue which they are trying to resolve. They did not actually have to tell us anything.

by suzysu 07.07.15 22:18

Syn wrote:
suzysu wrote:@Syn ".....All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims."

I'm sure it's maddening to you, as a techie, to have to deal with non-tech questions, but don't you find it ODD that an organisation as otherwise-credible as WBM hasn't come out publicly with an explanation?
No not maddening at all suzysu :) And no I don't find it odd at all. They are a non profit organisation who do not have to explain anything to anyone. They have had the decency to let us know that after further investigation the urls in question were archived incorrectly due to a subset issue which they are trying to resolve. They did not actually have to tell us anything.

Thank you Syn for not finding my question maddening :)

I accept that they're a non profit organisation, but even then, they are HUGE and, as we have been told, their data is (or has been) relied upon in court.

In order to preserve their integrity, wouldn't one expect (and have a right to expect) that if they have 'archived incorrectly' they have a duty to explain the error? If they don't, how can their data ever be relied upon in the future?

This is making a mockery of their entire raison d'etre.

by Suspicious Mind 08.07.15 8:46

Please excuse my ignorance when I ask what the debate is with regards to this Wayback site? I only joined this site yesterday and had minimal time to look through it. But, I noticed there seems to be quite a stir caused by the fact the Madeleine McCann case ended up on this Wayback site. What exactly is the issue, if any? What is Wayback? Can someone please enlighten this newcomer? smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 08.07.15 8:56

Suspicious Mind wrote:Please excuse my ignorance when I ask what the debate is with regards to this Wayback site? I only joined this site yesterday and had minimal time to look through it. But, I noticed there seems to be quite a stir caused by the fact the Madeleine McCann case ended up on this Wayback site. What exactly is the issue, if any? What is Wayback? Can someone please enlighten this newcomer?

REPLY: Wayback Machine is a vast archive which preserves for posterity actions which take place on the internet - such as the creation and alteration of websites, and individual pages on those websites.

A Brit living in the U.S. called Steve Marsden said he found a record of CEOP - the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre - having created a page about Madeleine McCann before 11.58am on 30 April 2007. This, if true, would suggest that something bad happened to Madeleine before then and not on 3 May 2007 as the McCanns claim.

The view espoused especially by posters Nuala and Syn on this forum is that this was an unfortunate (but as yet unspecified) 'glitch' in Wayback's system, i.e. a mistake.

by rustyjames 08.07.15 9:19

suzysu wrote:
Syn wrote:
suzysu wrote:@Syn ".....All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims."

I'm sure it's maddening to you, as a techie, to have to deal with non-tech questions, but don't you find it ODD that an organisation as otherwise-credible as WBM hasn't come out publicly with an explanation?
No not maddening at all suzysu :) And no I don't find it odd at all. They are a non profit organisation who do not have to explain anything to anyone. They have had the decency to let us know that after further investigation the urls in question were archived incorrectly due to a subset issue which they are trying to resolve. They did not actually have to tell us anything.
Thank you Syn for not finding my question maddening :)

I accept that they're a non profit organisation, but even then, they are HUGE and, as we have been told, their data is (or has been) relied upon in court.

In order to preserve their integrity, wouldn't one expect (and have a right to expect) that if they have 'archived incorrectly' they have a duty to explain the error? If they don't, how can their data ever be relied upon in the future?

This is making a mockery of their entire raison d'etre.

@suzysu - they are not huge. From wikipedia there are about 200 employees, a large proportion of which are involved in book scanning. Their raison d'être is to create a digital library of cultural artifacts to try and prevent this current era becoming a digital dark age. See below from their "About" page:

Why the Archive is Building an 'Internet Library'

Libraries exist to preserve society's cultural artifacts and to provide access to them. If libraries are to continue to foster education and scholarship in this era of digital technology, it's essential for them to extend those functions into the digital world.
Many early movies were recycled to recover the silver in the film. The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - an ancient center of learning containing a copy of every book in the world - was eventually burned to the ground. Even now, at the turn of the 21st century, no comprehensive archives of television or radio programs exist.
But without cultural artifacts, civilization has no memory and no mechanism to learn from its successes and failures. And paradoxically, with the explosion of the Internet, we live in what Danny Hillis has referred to as our "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]."
The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], we are working to preserve a record for generations to come.
Open and free access to literature and other writings has long been considered essential to education and to the maintenance of an open society. Public and philanthropic enterprises have supported it through the ages.
The Internet Archive is opening its collections to researchers, historians, and scholars. The Archive has no vested interest in the discoveries of the users of its collections, nor is it a grant-making organization.
At present, the size of our Web collection is such that using it requires [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. However, we are hopeful about the development of tools and methods that will give the general public easy and meaningful access to our collective history. In addition to developing our own collections, we are working to promote the formation of other Internet libraries in the United States and elsewhere.

by rustyjames 08.07.15 9:27

Syn wrote:
suzysu wrote:@Syn ".....All present and correct and NONE of them archived
on 30th April 2007 despite what the WB source directory claims."

I'm sure it's maddening to you, as a techie, to have to deal with non-tech questions, but don't you find it ODD that an organisation as otherwise-credible as WBM hasn't come out publicly with an explanation?
No not maddening at all suzysu :) And no I don't find it odd at all. They are a non profit organisation who do not have to explain anything to anyone. They have had the decency to let us know that after further investigation the urls in question were archived incorrectly due to a subset issue which they are trying to resolve. They did not actually have to tell us anything.

Syn - I generally agree with most of your posts, but can you explain what you consider a "subset issue" to be as my view is the continued use of the terminology "subset" is a case of Chinese whispers.

For reference my take on it in response to Tony where he quoted the manual section you'd highlighted is here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Rufus T 08.07.15 10:18

Posted with HKP's permission from MMM:

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

QUOTE

Here’s a dilemma, in looking at the captures something else jumps out, please read the extract from Wikipedia this hopefully will be self explanatory, note the highlighting is mine.

QUOTE WIKIPEDIA

Robots Exclusion Standard

The robots exclusion standard, also known as the robots exclusion protocol or robots.txt protocol, is a standard used by websites to communicate with web crawlers and other web robots. The standard specifies the instruction format to be used to inform the robot about which areas of the website should not be processed or scanned. Robots are often used by search engines to categorize and archive web sites, or by webmasters to proofread source code. Not all robots cooperate with the standard including email harvesters, spambots and malware robots that scan for security vulnerabilities. The standard is different from, but can be used in conjunction with Sitemaps, a robot inclusion standard for websites.

When a site owner wishes to give instructions to web robots they place a text file called robots.txt in the root of the web site hierarchy (e.g. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This text file contains the instructions in a specific format (see examples below). Robots that choose to follow the instructions try to fetch this file and read the instructions before fetching any other file from the web site. If this file doesn't exist, web robots assume that the web owner wishes to provide no specific instructions, and crawl the entire site.

A robots.txt file on a website will function as a request that specified robots ignore specified files or directories when crawling a site. This might be, for example, out of a preference for privacy from search engine results, or the belief that the content of the selected directories might be misleading or irrelevant to the categorization of the site as a whole, or out of a desire that an application only operate on certain data. Links to pages listed in robots.txt can still appear in search results if they are linked to from a page that is crawled.

UNQUOTE WIKIPEDIA

When applying this standard to the ceop captures the results are very interesting in April 07 there was 102 robot.txt urls captured at least one for every day (obviously some days were more (75 on 25th for some reason) and others were singular like the 26th & 28th (it should be noted not every day was crawled, 15 in total including 30th). Now given what we have read above the 30th needs to be looked at.

30/04/07 No robot.txt urls captured,

Given the above statement of ‘if this file doesn't exist web robots assume the web owner wishes to provide no specific instructions, and crawls the entire site’ is this what happened and the entire site was crawled picking up mccann.html & madeleine 01 & 02 jpgs??? Obviously there are still question marks around captures with future dates that still need to be explained.

I'd appreciate Resistor's opinion and a post onto CMOMM.

UNQUOTE

[Post re-formatted, and edited for clarity, by a Mod]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Posts: 192
Join date: 2014-08-30

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

by Suspicious Mind 08.07.15 14:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Suspicious Mind wrote:Please excuse my ignorance when I ask what the debate is with regards to this Wayback site? I only joined this site yesterday and had minimal time to look through it. But, I noticed there seems to be quite a stir caused by the fact the Madeleine McCann case ended up on this Wayback site. What exactly is the issue, if any? What is Wayback? Can someone please enlighten this newcomer?
REPLY: Wayback Machine is a vast archive which preserves for posterity actions which take place on the internet - such as the creation and alteration of websites, and individual pages on those websites.

A Brit living in the U.S. called Steve Marsden said he found a record of CEOP - the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre - having created a page about Madeleine McCann before 11.58am on 30 April 2007. This, if true, would suggest that something bad happened to Madeleine before then and not on 3 May 2007 as the McCanns claim.

The view espoused especially by posters Nuala and Syn on this forum is that this was an unfortunate (but as yet unspecified) 'glitch' in Wayback's system, i.e. a mistake.

Thanks for the reply Tony!

That machine must take some looking into as I would guess there are a lot of alterations on a daily basis? Even so, if it is true that this guy found such a page, it is a pretty scary thought, unless it was a glitch as thought by the posters you mentioned. If it is true, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on with regards to this family. It's a bit like the Jane Standing news bulletin from New York where she reports WTC 7 having gone down yet it is still standing in the background as she reports live on the BBC. Maybe there are a lot of people out there having premonitions.

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