 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> With each temporary server failure links would get removed. After some
> time, there would bee no more links left. And links would not be updated
> to point to the most current location either.
But that also applies if humans check each link. And since humans do it more
seldom and not so frequently, the time for correcting a wrong decision is
much longer.
Greetings again,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:02:27 +0200, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> But that also applies if humans check each link. And since humans do it
> more seldom and not so frequently, the time for correcting a wrong
> decision is much longer.
I don't know how Chris and Chris are doing their validation (I'll let them
speak to it), but the way I'm validating the links I'm working on is to
try the link - if it doesn't work, I use Google and web.archive.org to
locate information about the site. With web.archive.org, I look to see if
the last update includes a pointer to a new location.
I only mark a link for deletion if I can find no trace of the program any
more. If I find a copy of the referenced program or site that's valid, I
update the link with the new link information.
That sort of process is not something that would be easily (I don't think,
I could be wrong) coded into a link checking program.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:pan### [at] nospamcom...
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:02:27 +0200, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>
>> But that also applies if humans check each link. And since humans do it
>> more seldom and not so frequently, the time for correcting a wrong
>> decision is much longer.
>
> I don't know how Chris and Chris are doing their validation (I'll let them
> speak to it), but the way I'm validating the links I'm working on is to
> try the link - if it doesn't work, I use Google and web.archive.org to
> locate information about the site. With web.archive.org, I look to see if
> the last update includes a pointer to a new location.
>
> I only mark a link for deletion if I can find no trace of the program any
> more. If I find a copy of the referenced program or site that's valid, I
> update the link with the new link information.
>
> That sort of process is not something that would be easily (I don't think,
> I could be wrong) coded into a link checking program.
>
> Jim
Hi,
Yes. I'm doing similar types of manual searches for content that doesn't
come up straight away. The objective of the current exercise is to get the
content updated without absorbing the time of the POV-Team.
The re-categorisation is aimed at reducing the future maintenance effort,
hence the suggestion to focus the links more towards POV-Ray specific
content and using many other resources that are now out there. For example,
the Wiki's as Christophe suggested, plus predefined Google searches (bearing
in mind that they can also bring up inappropriate URLs), links to other link
sites and potentially blogs for historical discourses. So, in the structure
I've proposed we would drop most of the links to sites containing 3DS, VRML
etc. models, but would retain links to converters that support conversion
into a format suitable for POV-Ray. We would also include links to 'links'
pages specialising in 3DS, VRML etc. and potentially links to a very small
number of very large repositories.
Even if we do restrict the links more towards POV-Ray specific materials, I
think there are now such a large number of appropriate links out there and
that it will still be necessary for us to look at imaginative ways to keep
future maintenance within manageable limits.
I notice, for example, that the
http://www.wikipov.org/ow.asp?TutorialsFrontPage wiki page lists POV-Ray
tutorials, but that it only has about a quarter of the number of links that
povray.org has on this topic. If someone is prepared to commit to update and
maintain that page, then I think it would be reasonable for links to POV-Ray
tutorials to live there and for the povray.org tutorials link simply to
point to that page. If we can find someone with the motivation to do it,
then that person could use any tools they have at their disposal to keep a
check on those links. We could maybe also consider doing something similar
with categories like POV-Ray modelling programs and POV-Ray models, plus it
would seem an ideal place to organise collaborative development projects.
I think that such pages should definitely be put in place before linking to
them though, because we don't want to create extra links to pages that are
empty or incomplete from the outset.
For Galleries I think we could encourage the use of the various POV-Rings,
so that povray.org could simply link to the contributors listings for those
rings, as well as to the IRTC pages and to the Hall of Fame.
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Somebody should tell Google :-( Currently the English-language version
> returns <http://library.advanced.org/3285/> as second hit when searching
> for "povray" or "pov-ray"...
"NEW!: A word about the release of POV-Ray 3.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> I would really consider maintaining at least parts of the link
> collection in form of a wiki so maintainance work can be better
> distributed.
>
I agree. I would love to see an official wiki replace:
http://www.wikipov.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
>> I would really consider maintaining at least parts of the link
>> collection in form of a wiki so maintainance work can be better
>> distributed.
>
> I agree. I would love to see an official wiki replace:
>
> http://www.wikipov.org/
Certainly this would be a very interesting idea. And certainly it will
happen with the next overhaul of the website. When that will be? I don't
know yet, but I would guess in a year from now is realistic. The trouble
with Wikis is that there is spamming, so they have to be set up to be
secure, which again requires time of the webmaster (Chris Cason)...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 May 2006 17:54:36 -0500, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> The trouble
> with Wikis is that there is spamming, so they have to be set up to be
> secure, which again requires time of the webmaster (Chris Cason)...
At least with mediawiki, that's pretty easy to configure as long as you
have an authentication source set up.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 12/05/2006 14:15:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 20:02:27 +0200, Sven Littkowski wrote:
>
>
>>But that also applies if humans check each link. And since humans do it
>>more seldom and not so frequently, the time for correcting a wrong
>>decision is much longer.
>
>
> I don't know how Chris and Chris are doing their validation (I'll let them
> speak to it), but the way I'm validating the links I'm working on is to
> try the link - if it doesn't work, I use Google and web.archive.org to
> locate information about the site. With web.archive.org, I look to see if
> the last update includes a pointer to a new location.
>
> I only mark a link for deletion if I can find no trace of the program any
> more. If I find a copy of the referenced program or site that's valid, I
> update the link with the new link information.
>
> That sort of process is not something that would be easily (I don't think,
> I could be wrong) coded into a link checking program.
>
> Jim
If a link don't work, flag it. If it don't work for more than a week, kill it
definately. Have the
script make a log of such dead link. You can also create a broken links page. Monthly,
look at the
log, or broken links page, and do searches for those pages to see if they have moved
to a new
address or are realy gone.
At least, you save the work of finding the broken links.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:15:41 -0400, Alain wrote:
> At least, you save the work of finding the broken links.
That's the easy part, really. It's finding the replacements that takes
the time. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remember, guys, you can automate the tests. And each time someone opens the
link page, for only that moment the bad links are not displayed. As
automated tests are patient and never rest, each link is checked each time.
And here again, non-functional links can be flagged (was a good idea) with a
flag date. If that link does not work - let's say - 1 month or 3 months
after that flag, the link is removed from the databse, otherwise the flag
and the flag date is being removed.
That's how all that time and pain, and individual testing and frustration
and stress can be prevented. Why so much stress?
Sven
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pan### [at] nospamcom...
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:15:41 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> At least, you save the work of finding the broken links.
>
> That's the easy part, really. It's finding the replacements that takes
> the time. :-)
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
