News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 1996 news article. Parent comment

Re:Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 19... by mjevans on Sunday March 28, 2021 @11:58PM (#26617579)
The incorrect reporting and update is newsworthy; but the article as it existed is problematic to have as a primary source on a search result.

There should be some way of annotating the contents are deprecated and referencing another hyperlink which explains the currently known facts. This link might be to a court case for an authoritative result of non-conviction / assumed innocence.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 19... by williamscales on Monday March 29, 2021 @12:01AM (#26617598)
What is incorrect about the reporting? And why should the contents be considered deprecated? A sealed court case is not linkable.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 19... by fennecfoxen on Monday March 29, 2021 @10:06AM (#26621751)
The existence of a sealed court case doesn't mean that there's been justice, either, particularly where international diplomats have been involved.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 19... by colinmhayes on Monday March 29, 2021 @12:45AM (#26617785)
The reporting isn't incorrect though? They shoudln'tve revealed his name, but he did have an accusation against him.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Robots.txt for the NYT has a specific exclusion for an 19... by mjevans on Monday March 29, 2021 @12:53AM (#26617814)
It's incorrect in the sense of the summary or what someone who only saw the initial version might draw as a conclusion. Further the update mentions this initial version was _historically_ (Edit: from sometime after publication in 1996 and not updated until 2008!!!) left online and indexed by search engines well past when followups should have updated it with conclusions about that case.

Hence it is 'incorrect' to present this article in a cursory search result, but it is correct to produce it as a link in relation to more specific searches, or better, to instead of this page, any designated URL link when a hit would point to this page.

[ Parent | on HN ]