CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

Admin wrote:Sorry to go on but all this discussion should be in he Discussion threads in the other forum.  This is on the wayback machine thing, and has gone way off topic now.

Is there actually any agreement on whether the way back is right or wrong?

Locking for a minute whilst I split this thread.

Unlocked, please stick to Wayback information here please.

Thread has been split, the other posts in discussion section of the forum now, here on this link..


https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t829-split-from-wayback-thread-steve-marsden-posts-on-facebook-etc

caricature wrote:

Admin wrote:Sorry to go on but all this discussion should be in he Discussion threads in the other forum.  This is on the wayback machine thing, and has gone way off topic now.

Is there actually any agreement on whether the way back is right or wrong?

No.
(I still have to see anything to convince me that it is wrong.)

May I ask about the very many timestamps that all have the exact same details? ie 20073004 115803. This now seems to be what the ones who believe in an error are hanging their hats on.
I noticed the fact that the times were the same but thought it was only the subsections that were contained within the same folder, things like "what we do" " index"  etc, not thousands of pages.
Could the explanation for it be that someone has attempted to correct the anomaly, thereby screwing up the data?
I wonder if Stevo has original screenshots taken before he alerted to the situation. Might be worth messaging him.

The best way I could explain my opinion is that the WBM was correct and CEOP was at the ready for the go ahead for public consumption. Is that possible ? You damn right its possible. These people with power have no worries how you or I feel, they have no conscience. If they are rumbled they just carry on. Honest, they do.
I bet Jim Gamble throws an uneaten banana at his kids when he comes home from work. "Dad, its bruised". "Be lucky ya little bastard, I dodged bullets and bombs back in Belfast when I was conspiring my way up the chiefs arse"
"But dah, you left Ireland, why ?"

"Because those feckers in Donegal were on me back".....
Sin(g)n a Fein song for us Jimbo. You cant get away from it can yee....

Tell us Jim. Go on be a **** man. You cant can you. Because your wilderness now....One on the backburner for another day. And who will see you destroyed....The ones you headed. Your little Special Branch. All only my opinion

I second that Bubblewrapped.

Bubblewrapped wrote:The best way I could explain my opinion is that the WBM was correct and CEOP was at the ready for the go ahead for public consumption. Is that possible ? You damn right its possible. These people with power have no worries how you or I feel, they have no conscience. If they are rumbled they just carry on. Honest, they do.
I bet Jim Gamble throws an uneaten banana at his kids when he comes home from work. "Dad, its bruised". "Be lucky ya little bastard, I dodged bullets and bombs back in Belfast when I was conspiring my way up the chiefs arse"
"But dah, you left Ireland, why ?"

"Because those feckers in Donegal were on me back".....
Sin(g)n a Fein song for us Jimbo. You cant get away from it can yee....

Tell us Jim. Go on be a **** man. You cant can you. Because your wilderness now....One on the backburner for another day. And who will see you destroyed....The ones you headed. Your little Special Branch. All only my opinion

I once referred to Jim and Dave Edgar as the Belfast Mafia on twitter, and he went nuts, seems to be a sensitive subject.

Belfast is quite close to Donegal too. Just sayin'.

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…….
20070428022938 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070428022942 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/ceop_report.aspx
20070428022946 /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/ceop_report.aspx
20070428022950 /(S(3k4fdc452q0j0xaffdjr0jaf))/images/reportnext.gif
20070428142006 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/downloads.html

29/04/07 Not much happening here then…….
20070429115020 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115032 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115048 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115048 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115049 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115049 http://www.ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115051 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115051 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115052 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115053 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429115109 http://ceop.gov.uk/robots.txt
20070429141559 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/robots.txt
20070429141600 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/vacancies.html

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)
20070501151113 /robots.txt
20070501151114 /what_we_do.asp

02/05/07 Not much happening here then…….
20070502070550 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/robots.txt
20070502070606 /get_advice_what_is_grooming.html
20070502191317 /(S(2x40ol55kwvfjqaezv0noaes))/ceop_report.aspx
20070502191317 /(S(jngw3t550tsn24f3qsh3pj45))/ceop_report.aspx
20070502195551 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/robots.txt
20070502195557 http://www.ceop.gov.uk:80/get_advice.asp

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….

20070430115803 /mccann.html
20070513020901 /mccann.html
20070520033832 /(S(ii5hcne2ycfqpq45bo0yzr55))/mccann.html
20070522035225 /mccann.html
20070613040605 /mccann.html
20070706183353 /mccann.html
20070708201551 /mccann.html
20070713232146 /mccann.html
20070824232043 /mccann.html

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

I don't know what's rot and what's not rot (try saying that quickly) on this subject, HKP.

I could post it over for you - do I just copy and paste - I'm on an IPad?

Mo,
That should work

Thanks

Freedom wrote:I don't know what's rot and what's not rot (try saying that quickly) on this subject, HKP.

Ha, ha you're right.

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

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Freedom wrote:I don't know what's rot and what's not rot (try saying that quickly) on this subject, HKP.

Ha, ha you're right.

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

Our little tag team of Nuala and Syn are getting quite good at stating things as being facts, when they are nothing of the sort.  I have still to see any proof at all that the capture of mccann.html on 30/04/07 was "wrong".  Or any reasonable explanation as to why it came to be "wrong".  (Whether or not other things are wrong is totally irrelevant, but as yet, there's no actual proof of that either.)

I also see that Andy B has published the picture of Maddie from that page, complete with a perfectly square brown coloboma, which is also very strange IMO.  If you expand it you'll see exactly what he means.

Mo wrote:I could post it over for you - do I just copy and paste - I'm on an IPad?

Mo, sorry I won't keep asking!

Could you post over my last post (12:40) it kinda explains a bit, thanks for your help

No probs

Resistor wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Freedom wrote:I don't know what's rot and what's not rot (try saying that quickly) on this subject, HKP.

Ha, ha you're right.

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

Our little tag team of Nuala and Syn are getting quite good at stating things as being facts, when they are nothing of the sort.  I have still to see any proof at all that the capture of mccann.html on 30/04/07 was "wrong".  Or any reasonable explanation as to why it came to be "wrong".  (Whether or not other things are wrong is totally irrelevant, but as yet, there's no actual proof of that either.)

I also see that Andy B has published the picture of Maddie from that page, complete with a perfectly square brown coloboma, which is also very strange IMO.  If you expand it you'll see exactly what he means.

You're dead right, woolly statements about the issue and a 'contact the police' are a very persuasive argument NOT

Mo wrote:No probs

Thanks again.

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

HKP posted - I'm feeling like a double agent!

Hongkong Phooey 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

They quite possibly got new servers put in, or a new crawler (I think I read somewhere they changed crawlers around that time).  So they maybe did an extra-big crawl to test out new software or hardware.  I don't know what the algorithm is for scheduling crawls of particular domains, so it's impossible to say whether it's unusual or not.

You may very well be right however an extra big crawl that didn't include mccann.htm nor madeleine at all. Nothing found for any of these.

Just to add, the September URLs have no more than 2urls per second, what it does display is several repeats but they are not stuck on the one timestamp.

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.


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. https://www.example.com/robots.txt). 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.


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 Resistors  opinion and a post onto cmomm.