Please Make http://download.blender.org/documentation/ Browsable #54868

New Issue

Lawrence D'Oliveiro · 2018-04-28T04:24:49+02:00

2018-04-28 04:24:49 +02:00

http://download.blender.org/documentation/ is currently blocked from browsing. Yet several subdirectories under it are browsable. Is there any point in blocking browsing of their parent directory?

I agree much of the stuff under there is only of historical interest. But it is still worth keeping online. And if it’s worth keeping online, isn’t it worth keeping it accessible?

http://download.blender.org/documentation/ is currently blocked from browsing. Yet several subdirectories under it are browsable. Is there any point in blocking browsing of their parent directory? I agree much of the stuff under there is only of historical interest. But it is still worth keeping online. And if it’s worth keeping online, isn’t it worth keeping it accessible?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2018-04-28 04:24:49 +02:00

Added subscriber: @ldo

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2018-05-30 01:41:30 +02:00

Anybody there?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2018-06-30 13:30:04 +02:00

Hello?

Aaron Carlisle commented

2018-10-29 18:32:47 +01:00

Added subscribers: @dmcgrath, @Blendify

Danny McGrath was assigned by Aaron Carlisle

2018-10-29 18:32:47 +01:00

Aaron Carlisle commented

2018-10-29 18:32:47 +01:00

What exactly is here? Definitely it should not be locked. @dmcgrath can you change the permissions here?

Danny McGrath commented

2018-10-29 18:41:38 +01:00

This area has been off limits for a long time by the previous administration:

-rw-rw-r--   1 root  wheel        24 Nov  8  2008 index.html

The directory itself should probably only be accessible to people that have old direct links, otherwise it may be picked up by search engines, despite being old legacy information.

This area has been off limits for a long time by the previous administration: ``` -rw-rw-r-- 1 root wheel 24 Nov 8 2008 index.html ``` The directory itself should probably only be accessible to people that have old direct links, otherwise it may be picked up by search engines, despite being old legacy information.

Aaron Carlisle commented

2018-10-29 18:48:04 +01:00

Can you list all files that are in this directory?

There are also some files in https://docs.blender.org/api/ that should be archived.

Or maybe we should create a better system for archiving web pages, websites, ect...

Can you list all files that are in this directory? There are also some files in https://docs.blender.org/api/ that should be archived. Or maybe we should create a better system for archiving web pages, websites, ect...

Danny McGrath commented

2018-10-29 19:21:57 +01:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Danny McGrath closed this issue

2018-10-29 19:21:57 +01:00

Danny McGrath commented

2018-10-29 19:21:57 +01:00

Added subscriber: @Ton

Danny McGrath commented

2018-10-29 19:21:57 +01:00

Can you list all files that are in this directory?

Perhaps @Ton could chime in on if he wants these old areas exposed first. I don't see anything obvious that should be restricted, and there is indeed some good historical files here.

There are also some files in https://docs.blender.org/api/ that should be archived.

I see no benefit to moving stuff around to new locations. This breaks bookmarks and forces search engines to reindex things under a new path, while not understanding that it is an old file in a new location, as opposed to new content because it was re-discovered. I think that old stuff should be left where it is, thus allowing search engines to keep their own tabs on the age and update frequency of content it is aware of.

Or maybe we should create a better system for archiving web pages, websites, ect...

I don't see why we need a "system" for this? Just leave stuff where it is, and when the time comes that it is no longer needed, we hide it from public view (such as with the documentation/ path) or we rm it.

> Can you list all files that are in this directory? Perhaps @Ton could chime in on if he wants these old areas exposed first. I don't see anything obvious that should be restricted, and there is indeed some good historical files here. > There are also some files in https://docs.blender.org/api/ that should be archived. I see no benefit to moving stuff around to new locations. This breaks bookmarks and forces search engines to reindex things under a new path, while not understanding that it is an old file in a new location, as opposed to new content because it was re-discovered. I think that old stuff should be left where it is, thus allowing search engines to keep their own tabs on the age and update frequency of content it is aware of. > Or maybe we should create a better system for archiving web pages, websites, ect... I don't see why we need a "system" for this? Just leave stuff where it is, and when the time comes that it is no longer needed, we hide it from public view (such as with the `documentation/` path) or we `rm` it.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2018-10-29 20:07:21 +01:00

Changed status from 'Resolved' to: 'Open'

Lawrence D'Oliveiro reopened this issue

2018-10-29 20:07:21 +01:00

Lawrence D'Oliveiro commented

2018-10-29 20:07:21 +01:00

You do realize you can block things from search engines without preventing actual humans from browsing them?

So what exactly has been “resolved” here? I don’t see any actual answers to my questions: why shouldn’t the parent directory be browsable, given that a whole bunch of subdirectories already are? Is this material worth keeping online, or isn’t it?

You *do* realize you can [block things from search engines](http://www.robotstxt.org/) **without** preventing actual humans from browsing them? So what exactly has been “resolved” here? I don’t see any actual answers to my questions: why shouldn’t the parent directory be browsable, given that a whole bunch of subdirectories already are? Is this material worth keeping online, or isn’t it?

Danny McGrath commented

2018-10-30 02:37:02 +01:00

In #54868#547542, @ldo wrote:
You do realize you can block things from search engines without preventing actual humans from browsing them?

So what exactly has been “resolved” here? I don’t see any actual answers to my questions: why shouldn’t the parent directory be browsable, given that a whole bunch of subdirectories already are? Is this material worth keeping online, or isn’t it?

Oh, my bad. I didn't realise I had it set to resolved. That was a mistake when I was browsing the interface out of curiosity at the end of my previous reply, and I guess it must have left it set to the last thing I did when I opened the page back up again.

As for the report itself, I had no part in any of the decisions to block any browsing for the site. Someone at some point probably had some issue with bandwidth or something, perhaps? I honestly don't know, I merely preserve the environment as it was. This is why I suggested to bring Ton into the conversation, as only him or Marco or Jesterking (previous admin) likely know the full story.

And yes, I am aware of the existence of robots.txt, I am the one that put in the current one to block the /ftp/ path. However, there are always more important things on our site TODO than cleaning this old area. It is on the radar for a few people, though!

> In #54868#547542, @ldo wrote: > You *do* realize you can [block things from search engines](http://www.robotstxt.org/) **without** preventing actual humans from browsing them? > > So what exactly has been “resolved” here? I don’t see any actual answers to my questions: why shouldn’t the parent directory be browsable, given that a whole bunch of subdirectories already are? Is this material worth keeping online, or isn’t it? Oh, my bad. I didn't realise I had it set to resolved. That was a mistake when I was browsing the interface out of curiosity at the end of my previous reply, and I guess it must have left it set to the last thing I did when I opened the page back up again. As for the report itself, I had no part in any of the decisions to block any browsing for the site. Someone at some point probably had some issue with bandwidth or something, perhaps? I honestly don't know, I merely preserve the environment as it was. This is why I suggested to bring Ton into the conversation, as only him or Marco or Jesterking (previous admin) likely know the full story. And yes, I am aware of the existence of robots.txt, I am the one that put in the current one to block the `/ftp/` path. However, there are always more important things on our site TODO than cleaning this old area. It is on the radar for a few people, though!

Danny McGrath was unassigned by Dalai Felinto

2019-12-23 16:36:14 +01:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Milestone

No project

No Assignees

3 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: infrastructure/blender-org#54868

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Please Make http://download.blender.org/documentation/ Browsable #54868