On Thursday, March 29, 2012, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On ons, 2012-03-28 at 21:14 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> You can add the dropdown fairly easily in the website code. However, >> that assumes that no pages have *changed filenames* between versions. >> Which is not true. That would either drop those versions from the >> list, or generate a 404. I'm not sure how to create some sort of >> mapping between versions that would actually work without being >> actively maintained (and if it has to be actively maintained, it will >> go out of date). > > Not that those cross-version links wouldn't be useful (in fact, I often > would like to have them when starting at the latest version going > backwards), but they don't really solve the underlying problem. I don't > really believe that it is a general search engine behavior to always > prefer the oldest resource among alternatives. For example, if I search > for something like "presidential elections", I surely don't get links to > the oldest presidential election on record. > > A related problem: At least a search on Google will usually find the > documentation of some old version. A search on Bing, however, doesn't > find the documentation at all. That indicates to me that there is > something seriously wrong in how the web site is constructed.
Works for me. Aside from the version issue, I get very relevant results for a few test searches on Bing. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
