From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem |
Date: | 2016-11-10 20:28:09 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTQh32bkyGn22LSUdPi+rmpw=-HVYXkgpM4wnJ73kdwVQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> wrote:
> I do. It's often successful.
If I search for "postgresql jsonb", the first result I see is
"PostgreSQL: Documentation: 9.4: JSON Types", which is what I'd expect
(though, the current version would be better). If I search for
"postgresql jsonb 9.5", I don't see the result "JSON Types" at all,
for any version on the first page of results. I do see "9.5: JSON
Functions and Operators", presumably because those changed in 9.5.
Most of the important information about jsonb is under "JSON Types",
and I don't get to see that at all. I think that putting a version
number into Google is a pretty bad strategy. By making the current
version of each page canonical (or, the latest version that still has
the page), we'd be better off on average. There might be a cost, but
it seems well worth it to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2016-11-10 20:28:24 | Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2016-11-10 20:18:52 | Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem |