Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Google results for https://www.scala-lang.org/ are marked with a "13 Feb 2015" timestamp #1730

Closed
epic-64 opened this issue Jan 10, 2025 · 11 comments

Comments

@epic-64
Copy link

epic-64 commented Jan 10, 2025

Screenshot from 2025-01-10 11-40-39

Usually only "blog posts" or "threads" get a timestamp in the results, but it seems the scala landing page was wrongly indexed as such.

It could have a negative effect on users seeing it in the search results for the first time, creating a false impression that the Scala language or website has not been maintained for a while.

One potential explanation could be that the landing page used to be a blog and the timestamp of "the newest article" was never removed by Google afterwards.

PS someone noticed that "Feb 13, 2015" could be a wild translation from the newest Scala 2 version, "2.13.15"

@eed3si9n
Copy link
Member

I don't see sitemap in rsync output (https://scala-webapps.epfl.ch/jenkins/view/All/job/production_scala-lang.org-builder/8287/console ). I wonder if the sitemap isn't generated for some reason.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

@fsalvi is this an area where you have any insight?

@fsalvi
Copy link
Contributor

fsalvi commented Jan 10, 2025

I saw this website:
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/03/help-google-search-know-best-date-for?hl=en

I'll have a deeper look next week.

@fsalvi
Copy link
Contributor

fsalvi commented Jan 13, 2025

Well, I didn't see anything wrong server-side which could lead to this result.
Date is properly set (Last-Modified: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:45:09 GMT).
I would suggest giving a try at the solution proposed by Google:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/publication-dates?hl=en
in the headers (_includes/headertop.html).
We would quickly see if it makes a difference.

@He-Pin
Copy link

He-Pin commented Jan 13, 2025

use Google site to refresh?

@fsalvi
Copy link
Contributor

fsalvi commented Jan 23, 2025

Ok, there's no doubt it's because of the scala version seen on the page.
Now, the google result shows 13 Feb 2016!
Maybe the use of AI in google search engine... :-D

The html source code only contains: "Scala 2.13.16 and older releases"
We could try to add "Scala version 2.13.6 and older releases" instead, to see if google engine can understand the difference between a date and a software version.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

@fsalvi is there no way to make this deterministic? do we have no choice but to try to outwit the weird guessing they're doing?

@fsalvi
Copy link
Contributor

fsalvi commented Feb 11, 2025

As suggested, we could try either to change a bit the text (eg add "Version 2....", or to try the publication-dates:
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/publication-dates?hl=en

I guess the easiest would be to try to just add "Version 2..." to see if it changes something.

@eed3si9n
Copy link
Member

FYI - sbt's website generates sitemap during the website build process (e.g. sbt/website#412), which puts sitemap_index.xml last modified date like this:

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<sitemapindex xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9">
    <sitemap>
        <loc>https://www.scala-sbt.org/sitemap.xml.gz</loc>
        <lastmod>2025-02-03</lastmod>
    </sitemap>
    <sitemap>
        <loc>https://www.scala-sbt.org/1.x/sitemap.xml.gz</loc>
        <lastmod>2025-02-03</lastmod>
    </sitemap>
</sitemapindex>

which in turn points to more sitemaps.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

as an easy first step, let's try not including the Scala 2 version number on the front page: #1762

SethTisue added a commit to SethTisue/scala-lang that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

It worked!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants