> On 12 Oct 2018, at 23:18, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-10-12 23:10:30 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 12/10/18 23:01, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> For a while now the "current" and "10" links have been merged in one
>>> section, with either not being clickable when the other is selected.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's good. I very commonly want to give people links to
>>> the *current* version of the docs (so if they bookmark it, they'll not
>>> have a soon-to-be-out-of-date link). But a search might lead me to the
>>> version specific page for 10.
Pretty sure the search will never lead to /current/, perhaps it should? At
least if you are on a /current/ link it should, where it now only links to
/10/ pages.
>>> So then I've to navigate to some other
>>> version, just to be able to click on the 'current' link. That's weird.
>>>
>>> Is that an intentional side-effect?
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/63641a45-36fc-a8d2-69e4-e150cfbfa032%402ndquadrant.com
>
> On 2017-07-09 23:13:55 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 09 Jul 2017, at 15:47, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If I'm on a 9.4 page (random example), I can click on either "current"
>>> or 9.6. But if I'm already on the 9.6 page, I can no longer click on
>>> "current".
>>>
>>> As of this writing, those two pages are the same thing so it's not that
>>> big a deal. But I specifically want the "current" link because that's
>>> what I add to pg_docbot on irc.
>>
>> Wouldn’t such a link increase the risk of confusion for beginners regarding
>> which version is the latest?
>
> I don't find that convincing. For one, we do have both links - with
> different targets! - clickable when on other versions. For another, as
> long as they're both within the same / /, I don't see why it'd introduce
> meaningfully more confusion.
Yeah, you’re probably right.
Thinking on it, we should probably make the version-# link into the canonical
URL of the page though, as Google will see /current/ and /<version>/ as
duplicate content and punish one (they explicitly state that one will be
crawled “less often”, whatever that means). In general, duplicate content is
something that Google has been treating harshly for a long time.
Another thing I noted while in there is that links to old version of the docs
has been removed in the new design. I might be the only one, but thats a
feature I quite often use as a quick way to figure out when something was
introduced (click on 8.4 when reading about X and seeing if X was mentioned in
8.4 etc). Are the missing links a just-not-done-in-the-demo site artefact, or
will they be dropped, or just parked somewhere more hidden?
cheers ./daniel
