Re: Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.

by Joss 29.06.15 19:07

Nuala wrote:@ Joss

It states here in the section i bolded on their terms of use that indeed you can provide content to the archive.

Right okay, so to go back to your original question then:

What i was asking was can the person/s that made that data available to WBM if data was in error change that data if incorrectly submitted by the owner of the content by application to WBM staff to have it corrected?

I don't know. Neither do I think it's relevant, unless one is going down another conspiracy theory route, and I don't believe the pages from the CEOP website were submitted either.

And that's the whole problem with all of it, in that we don't really know what exactly happened with WBM or what CEOP actually did either. At best we can only guess. And i might add not all so called conspiracy theories turn out to be conspiracies either. I think there has definitely been some type of cover up in this case of a missing child,and that throws everything else about it into question as well. What can we really trust with any of it under those circumstances. All IMO.

by Nuala 29.06.15 19:09

@ Sam S

Over 130 pages and counting. Seems an awful lot of effort is being put in to explain a simple "error". Never mind, confusion is good

Couldn't agree more.

We have the evidence the URLs for 3rd Apr 2007 are screwed, all 3,000 pieces of evidence, plus Wayback confirming in writing.

At some point common sense has to kick in. However badly some people want some sort of preplanned conspiracy, the evidence doesn't fit the theory, and if the evidence doesn't fit the theory it can't be made to fit just because some so badly want it to.

by SixMillionQuid 29.06.15 19:12

Nuala wrote:@ Sam S

Over 130 pages and counting. Seems an awful lot of effort is being put in to explain a simple "error". Never mind, confusion is good

Couldn't agree more.

We have the evidence the URLs for 3rd Apr 2007 are screwed, all 3,000 pieces of evidence, plus Wayback confirming in writing.

At some point common sense has to kick in. However badly some people want some sort of preplanned conspiracy, the evidence doesn't fit the theory, and if the evidence doesn't fit the theory it can't be made to fit just because some so badly want it to.

The quote from Mr Butler is "appears to be...".

Crawl->File transfer->Timestamp->Archive.

by HKP 29.06.15 19:34

@Nuala, there are 3015 URLs which start on 30/04 2945 are from 30/04 alone, of those there is 1032 news items which are a selection from 30/04/06 end of Dec. 2007. You will find that the news articles are generally repeated about 20 times each. You will also find data from 30/04/06 and 30/04/08 its obvious that 30/04 is a crawl start date in these three years. On 30/04/2006 there were no captures on that specific date, 30/04/2008 was the same (2008 from memory). Ok so I'll ask again how many of the 3015 are wrong and how many correct because we may only need a few. As for WBM they crawled the mccann.html only 2 days ago, and ceop changed their address (url) for the McCann file sometime between 17th and 27th of this month. Make of all this what you can / want

by Richard Henshaw 29.06.15 19:36

"The nonprofit Internet Archive has an impossibly ambitious mission: to save a copy of every last piece of the public internet, forever, and to make the records freely available for anyone to use.

The archive currently stands at 2 petabytes, which is more than all the text contained in the Library of Congress. They've been treating the internet — the fleeting, here-today-gone-tomorrow internet — as something worth preserving.
Since its inception in 1996, the organization has become a critical resource for academics and researchers interested in the internet as a cultural repository. One part of the project, called the Wayback Machine, has been especially popular. It's like a time capsule for the Web, preserving copies of billions of pages, as they are, at a moment in time.
It couldn't be simpler; type in a URL, and the Wayback Machine will display snapshots of that URL on various dates. It's especially useful for looking back at deleted information, which has made the Wayback Machine an indispensable tool for journalists. Some politician decided to remove a particularly blockheaded press release from his site? The Wayback Machine sees all, and preserves every misstep.
So it's remarkable that for the past 13 years, some of the most important websites of New York State's government have been deliberately excluded from the archive, their records hidden from public view. Sixty-three "state.ny.us" addresses, to be exact, including the site of the New York State Assembly. Even more remarkably, the problem wasn't noticed until now.
The exclusion wasn't an oversight by the archive itself. The group's servers grab virtually every public webpage by default. According to the Archive's Chris Butler, someone within the New York State government requested, way back in 2001, that a broad swath of domains be eliminated from the archiving process.
"It was at a time when the Wayback Machine had only been public for a short time," Butler said, "for less than a year." Butler explained that the situation was particularly odd because government websites are among the group's highest priority for preservation. "They're obviously really important records."
Who requested that the sites be removed? Butler isn't exactly sure. And why? He's not sure about that either.

The archive is a pretty accommodating bunch; they'll exclude any website upon request by the owner or manager, and they don't demand an explanation. They do know it had something to do with the attacks of 9-11 — security concerns, presumably — but other than that, there aren't any notes in their system that would shed more light on the mystery.
How exactly this went unnoticed for 13 years isn't clear, either. Butler said the group has never received a call about it, although someone must have tried to look at an archived version of one of these sites at some point in the past decade.

The Voice has been unable to reach anyone in state government that might be able to clear things up. New York State's Office of Information Technology Services wasn't sure who would have been responsible for such a request. And this many years on, it's possible we'll never know the story.
The good news is that the Internet Archive has been backing up the websites all along — they just haven't been adding them to their public interface — and after a call from a reporter, public access has been restored.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 20:13

Richard Henshaw wrote:"The nonprofit Internet Archive has an impossibly ambitious mission: to save a copy of every last piece of the public internet, forever, and to make the records freely available for anyone to use.

The archive currently stands at 2 petabytes, which is more than all the text contained in the Library of Congress. They've been treating the internet — the fleeting, here-today-gone-tomorrow internet — as something worth preserving.
Since its inception in 1996, the organization has become a critical resource for academics and researchers interested in the internet as a cultural repository. One part of the project, called the Wayback Machine, has been especially popular. It's like a time capsule for the Web, preserving copies of billions of pages, as they are, at a moment in time.
It couldn't be simpler; type in a URL, and the Wayback Machine will display snapshots of that URL on various dates. It's especially useful for looking back at deleted information, which has made the Wayback Machine an indispensable tool for journalists. Some politician decided to remove a particularly blockheaded press release from his site? The Wayback Machine sees all, and preserves every misstep.
So it's remarkable that for the past 13 years, some of the most important websites of New York State's government have been deliberately excluded from the archive, their records hidden from public view. Sixty-three "state.ny.us" addresses, to be exact, including the site of the New York State Assembly. Even more remarkably, the problem wasn't noticed until now.
The exclusion wasn't an oversight by the archive itself. The group's servers grab virtually every public webpage by default. According to the Archive's Chris Butler, someone within the New York State government requested, way back in 2001, that a broad swath of domains be eliminated from the archiving process.
"It was at a time when the Wayback Machine had only been public for a short time," Butler said, "for less than a year." Butler explained that the situation was particularly odd because government websites are among the group's highest priority for preservation. "They're obviously really important records."
Who requested that the sites be removed? Butler isn't exactly sure. And why? He's not sure about that either.

The archive is a pretty accommodating bunch; they'll exclude any website upon request by the owner or manager, and they don't demand an explanation. They do know it had something to do with the attacks of 9-11 — security concerns, presumably — but other than that, there aren't any notes in their system that would shed more light on the mystery.
How exactly this went unnoticed for 13 years isn't clear, either. Butler said the group has never received a call about it, although someone must have tried to look at an archived version of one of these sites at some point in the past decade.

The Voice has been unable to reach anyone in state government that might be able to clear things up. New York State's Office of Information Technology Services wasn't sure who would have been responsible for such a request. And this many years on, it's possible we'll never know the story.
The good news is that the Internet Archive has been backing up the websites all along — they just haven't been adding them to their public interface — and after a call from a reporter, public access has been restored.

Thank you very much @ Richard Henshaw for your valuable input

by XXXXXXXX 29.06.15 20:14

"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.15 20:18

XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."

Why would the police be interested in an "error in the Timestamp"?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 20:24

XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."

That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".

by HKP 29.06.15 20:30

@Get'emGonçalo

Why would the police be interested, more to this than a wrong time stamp

by sallypelt 29.06.15 20:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
XXXXXXXX wrote:"Lizzy Hideho Taylor
1 hr · Edited
I just spoke to Chris about the WBM issues to ask if there could be a further email about the reason the CEOP page appeared on April 30th. His response was that the email he sent to me initially was an acknowledgement of their error in the Timestamp (something to do with a 'subset') and that there really isn't anything else they can reply to.
He has become aware of the 'speculation' but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."
That's not an honest response.

After seeing that report from Lizzy Taylor, to me the balance of the argument has swung again in favour of those who assert there WAS a 'capture' of a 'mccann.html' file by Wayback Machine on the CEOP website at 11.58am on 30 April 2007.

"Something to do with a subset" is not an answer at all.

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

A subset error that only affects the CEOP site on 30 April 2007?

What subset error and how many other timestamps are affected?

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".

Snipped from above:

but basically cannot respond any further and suggested that if anyone has any queries about anything regarding the error and if they feel that there may be major implications they should contact the police and he will furnish them with any information necessary."

What will they "furnish them with"? That it was an "glitch" or is it something bigger?

by HKP 29.06.15 20:39

@Tony Bennett, I've waited a long time to agree with TB big grin

by HKP 29.06.15 20:43

@Sallypelt, it's a Basil Fawlty timestamp officer, all done thank you I've fixed the 3015 URLs all of them were wrong not ONE was correct especially the mccann. html that was definitely wrong.

by HKP 29.06.15 21:10

If Chris Butler is "aware of the speculation" why would he just say it's all hogwash because 'x' happened or due to 'y'. To say you need to get the police to ask us what is right or wrong is highly suspect.

by HKP 29.06.15 21:12

Meant to be 'Just not say' in my last post (can't edit)

by Richard Henshaw 29.06.15 21:28

Crawl - follow links - time stamp and archive. Simple as !

by Nuala 29.06.15 21:37

@ Tony Bennett

And if he has got the answer, how many minutes does it take for him to write out an explanation and give it to Lizzy Taylor or anyone else who has enquired about their alleged error?

I still don't understand why anyone here thinks they have any right to expect anything from Wayback. Their website makes it perfectly clear they are non-profit with few and stretched resources. The minutes you refer to become hours then days then weeks etc etc if they're receiving enquiries from all over the world.

And as for: 'Go to the police', this says to me: "This is very sensitive and we're not telling you anything more - ever. Now leave us alone".

It says to me they have given exactly the answer they should give.

If the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was preplanned, which frankly is ridiculous, but if it was, who else should be investigating except the police?

Why on earth anyone thinks Wayback should be discussing anything with us, people I expect they regard as a bunch of amateur sleuths I've no idea. If anyone thinks there is valid evidence that Madeleine McCann's disappearance was replanned and CEOP was involved, and honestly even typing that makes me doubt my own sanity, then they need to give that evidence to Op Grange, with whom Wayback will be happy to co-operate.

That's as it should be.

by Nuala 29.06.15 21:41

@ HKP

To say you need to get the police to ask us what is right or wrong is highly suspect.

There is nothing suspect about it, it's absolutely the right thing for him to say.

We're talking about a crime here, this isn't a game.

Crimes are investigated by the police.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 21:49

Richard Henshaw: wrote:Crawl - follow links - time stamp and archive. Simple as !

HKP wrote:
@Tony Bennett, I've waited a long time to agree with TB

I am a non-tecchie.

I can understand what you say up to a point.

But...

1. Can the time stamp be wrong? (which is I think what some of those who say it's all an error are saying)

2. If the time stamp is RIGHT, could it be wrong in picking up the 'mccann.html' page?

3. If the time stamp is RIGHT, could the 'archiving' be wrong somewhere along the line?

You say you have relevant expertise and I believe you.

Please if you would explain in more detail what you've written above.

Also, please comment on the acceptability of Wayback's explanation: "It was some sort of problem with a sub-set".

TIA

++++++++++++++++++++++

@ HKP So we are agreed that there may have been a CEOP page with the URL ending 'mccann.html' on 30 April 2007?

If we are correct, then some of the things I have been so sternly criticised for - (a) insisting that the Last Photo could have been a genuine photo taken on 29 April, (b) that Smithman is a fabrication based on Wojcek Krokowski, and (c) that there is a big mystery about why Robert Murat hurried out to Praia da Luz early on 1 May, then lied about what he did when he got there, then translated for half of the Tapas 9 whilst at the same time trying to look at police documents on the quiet - wouldn't look that far out...

...would they?

by HKP 29.06.15 21:50

@Nuala. a crime, what crime are WBM involved in? In reality there is a missing person you'd think they would want to help. Besides it is easy for him to tell anybody that investigations revealed x or y was wrong. It's not difficult for him to stop speculation.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.06.15 21:54

Nuala wrote:@ HKP

To say you need to get the police to ask us what is right or wrong is highly suspect.

There is nothing suspect about it, it's absolutely the right thing for him to say.

We're talking about a crime here, this isn't a game.

With respect, no, we are not talking about a crime.

We are simply talking about whether a dated capture of a CEOP page was correct, or a 'glitch'.

The answer: "It was something to do with a subset" is wholly unconvincing.

I doubt if even Lizzy Taylor, whose careful analyses of so many contradictions in the case have been viewed by millions, really accepts that as the final word on this subject.

by Nuala 29.06.15 21:56

@ HKP

a crime, what crime are WBM involved in?

I didn't say Wayback is involved in a crime.

You're accusing CEOP of being involved in a crime.

That's for the police to investigate, that's why Wayback said to contact the police.

by whodunnit 29.06.15 22:01

This is a 'response' written on air with an air pencil. It is utterly meaningless.

The disappearance of a child is a matter of public interest. Any piece of evidence touching on the case, no matter from what source, is also a matter of public concern. The questions that were put to WBM reps by members of the public 1. deserve a serious, considered, and honest response and 2. is concerning information that does not require a subpoena or police intervention. It isn't a state secret or an infringement on privacy laws, domestic or international, and it does not impinge upon anyone's civil rights.

by HKP 29.06.15 22:04

@Nuala. I have accused nobody of being involved in a crime (not on this thread anyway big grin

) please get your facts right.

by Nuala 29.06.15 22:04

@ Tony Bennett

We are simply talking about whether a dated capture of a CEOP page was correct, or a 'glitch'.

We've already established that the 3,000 URLs for ONE SINGLE DAY the 30th Apr 2007 shows that date is screwed. Some of those URLs are for news items that hadn't even been published by CEOP by that date.

Wayback has confirmed that the date for mccann.html is wrong, and the evidence from the URL list backs that up. Big time in fact.

Steve Marsden's WBM screenshot: The CEOP Home page for April 30, 2007 also refers to Missing Madeleine.