>I've had a similar problem for years. When I go out and search the WWW
>I find a dozen (probably more ) _ancient_ copies (someone emailed me
>complaining about a 1994 copy on a site in Denmark). I've emailed
>webmasters about the issue a number of times. Typically there either
>is no response, or the response is minimal.
If for no other reason than mine having been different. About 1/3
of the time there's no response (far too high -- don't these people
at least want _their_ web site to be up to date?) but most of the rest
of the time they update or change the copy to a link (or, as I do,
go to a link _and_ copy system). Of course there is the one fellow
I told had a very old version of my FAQ and he should update, or,
preferably, link to, and his response was to send a very huffy letter
telling me that he would delete the faq and all reference to it.
Side note: I've been somewhat on both sides of this as I do
maintain (loosely speaking, in that the subject doesn't change
rapidly, so my last posted version is almost 2 years old) a faq,
and I also have some faqs on my work web site. In the latter case,
I've written the authors (thanks folks) suggesting that I both keep
a copy locally to the site, with a forewarning that this version
may be old (though again, typically material that doesn't change
all that fast) _and_ a link to one of the official archive sites.
So far, everyone has seemed amenable to the idea (some authors
were surprised that I even bothered to ask).
YMMV and all that.
Certainly it is exceeding annoying to have archaic versions of
the faq floating around, and worse to have people refuse to update
(or link) to the current one after being advised that they _are_
so out of date.
Robert Grumbine
bobg@radix.net
Sea level FAQ
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved