I did a GoogleSearch http://www.google.com/search?q=DateAndDarwen
to find my refactorings of DateAndDarwen
. I was surprised to find two things in the first page of results:
- c2.com did not appear in the result
- a site called http://simplewebs.com/c2/?DateAndDarwen
There was also a hit on my wiki which was not unexpected: http://mahi.ucsd.edu/cgi-bin/ChrisGarrod?DateAndDarwen
I kept some notes on my refactoring there.
I looked into the simplewebs site, and found the information I expected to find on c2.com. On c2.com, I was modifying my HomePage
, and after saving it, I asked simplewebs for http://simplewebs.com/c2/?ChrisGarrod
and it found my new page. I then asked for http://simplewebs.com/c2/?RecentChanges
and found that it was dated 20070423 - about a week old.
My question is: Why is simplewebs doing this, and do we on WardsWiki
care? When I click on one of their EditPage
buttons, I get an url like: http://simplewebs.com/c2/?edit=RecentChanges
that doesn't mention the CodeWord
at all, so I presume their changes stay there. Are they trying to hijack our content?
And lastly, why didn't Google find the pages on c2.com with DateAndDarwen
Oh and also, these came up as hits too, and I didn't trust the web to visit them:
The above URLs had our WikiWord
s in them but the content was more of a listing as in a harvest. Who knows anything about those? The cryptic portion of the URLs are so similar.
And lastly, why didn't Google find the pages on c2.com with DateAndDarwen?
Chris did his investigations in April 2007, back when GoogleHatesWiki
I just came upon the simplewebs site. RecentChanges
is up-to-date, as is RubyOnRailsRulesTheUniverse
. I edited RubyOnRailsRulesTheUniverse
from simplewebs, and the edit took. No CodeWord
needed. The RubyOnRailsRulesTheUniverse
changes show up on the usual c2 site. Who the heck hosts simplewebs? -- ElizabethWiethoff
1726 Woodland Drive
Vienna, WV 26105
Domain Name: SIMPLEWEBS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Jeremy, Backus firstname.lastname@example.org
850 Washburn Avenue
Louisville, KY 40222
502-425-2408 fax: 999 999 9999
Record expires on 22-Feb-2008.
Record created on 22-Feb-1999.
Database last updated on 16-Oct-2007 18:13:25 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
So I guess this would be a question for JeremyBackus
. With JS on, simplewebs just redirects to the usual c2 page (or sometimes twirls & blinks in confusion). For example, try visiting http://simplewebs.com/c2/?DateAndDarwen
stuff amidst weird, invalid HTML.
Simplewebs could be a proxy hack: http://www.seofaststart.com/blog/google-proxy-hacking
. Even if it's not, failing to prevent proxy hacking could explain why GoogleHatesWiki
I wonder if simplewebs wasn't a Ward-sanctioned effort to develop a WardsWiki successor - with full integration to the "old" WardsWiki to ease migration - that never made it to production. Or, that has yet to make it to production...
Firefox 2 on MacOsx
. Yes, Simplewebs might be Ward-sanctioned. On the other hand, JeremyBackus
's page lists a couple links (snap.com and nichebot.com) which give me the royal creeps, and I'm engaging in guilt by association. In either case, duplicate content can get WardsWiki
(or Simplewebs) dropped ever since Google started incorporating dupe detection in its indexing algo. -- Eliz
I noticed something interesting looking at simplewebs.com/?DaveVoorhis
. The first sentence reads as follows: "Note: As of 01Desimplewebs006, [...]". That looked odd to me, so I checked Dave's page on the real c2 wiki, and the first sentence is actually "Note: As of 01Dec2006, [...]". They ran a (much too simple) search-and-replace, changing "c2" to "simplewebs". My money is on this not being Ward-sanctioned in any way. -- MichaelSparks
Yup. Based on that evidence, I change my position.
Though, on second thought (somewhat later), it might be an innocuous mechanism - the device to transform URLs like http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccountingModeling to http://simplewebs.com/?AccountingModeling might be nothing but a crude global text replacement, built on the mistaken assumption that 'c2' would never appear in normal discussion except in URLs. Or, the mechanism might not have been completed. Maybe. I've emailed Jeremy Backus about this, so we'll see what he says, if anything.