Re: Bad order of Postgres links in Google search results and how to fix it

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> We could actually make the current version "canonical" but then it would be
> actually awkward if anyone wanted to search for older docs. And it's not
> true in general that every page is present in every version. We sometimes
> add or remove pages from the docs... That still might be the only really
> useful option today.

I'm not quite following why that's such a bad option?

People would get sent to the current version, sure, but there's a header
right there with a link to the prior version they actually want.

Pages being deleted might be a problem, but how would a nonexistent
"canonical" marking on a page that doesn't exist stop indexing of older
pages?  Maybe we could even notice "page XYZ doesn't exist after 9.3,
so mark 9.3's version as canonical".

            regards, tom lane