Trial run at Archiving pages rather than delete/unpublish

[Addison Berry]

There has been a bit of discussion regarding the fact that when the
docs team cleans out the handbook by unpublishing or deleting outdated
handbook material that we are creating link rot issues. We are going
to do a trial run of archiving them instead. There is a new top level
book called Archive now. It is weighted at the bottom of the handbook
list. It is not publicly linked anywhere. You can only get to it by
direct URL or going to the d.o book list (not the handbook landing
page, but the actual book module list at http://drupal.org/book.)

So when "removing" old junk from the handbook, please follow this
procedure:
- Edit the title to start with "OUTDATED: "
- Move the page to the Archive book.

That's it. We will also look into the feasibility of adding a banner
to those pages as well.

Have fun!
- Addi
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Hello, Addi,

In addition to (or perhaps instead of), how about a theming function
that gave all pages in the "Archive" book a different page background
color, or even a background watermark image that said "Outdated docs --
saved for archival purposes" --

My wording isn't great, but something that created an immediate visual
difference would help key people in that they had wandered into the
"Archive" area.

Cheers,

Bill

Post by Addison Berry
There has been a bit of discussion regarding the fact that when the
docs team cleans out the handbook by unpublishing or deleting outdated
handbook material that we are creating link rot issues. We are going
to do a trial run of archiving them instead. There is a new top level
book called Archive now. It is weighted at the bottom of the handbook
list. It is not publicly linked anywhere. You can only get to it by
direct URL or going to the d.o book list (not the handbook landing
page, but the actual book module list at http://drupal.org/book.)
So when "removing" old junk from the handbook, please follow this
- Edit the title to start with "OUTDATED: "
- Move the page to the Archive book.
That's it. We will also look into the feasibility of adding a banner
to those pages as well.
Have fun!
- Addi
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

[Hilde Austlid]

Hi!

Post by Addison Berry
So when "removing" old junk from the handbook, please follow this
- Edit the title to start with "OUTDATED: "
- Move the page to the Archive book.

This procedure should be added to
http://drupal.org/documentation-writers-guide. I've made an issue
about it at http://drupal.org/node/249778. Since this is a matter of
doc guidelines, I wanted some more eyes on it, rather than just
editing the page on my own.

Hilde
(username zirvap on drupal.org)
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

[Dave Chakrabarti]

Hey all,

I had a client almost sign up for Siteground as a result of a handbook
page that was created to help their SEO. Other posts on d.o were
created by the same user to pimp Siteground, and there's been *very*
heavy criticism of their hosting / marketing / blackhat SEO tactics on
d.o and a couple of nonprofit tech mailing lists.

Other folks have also said that d.o "advertises" siteground, which
sounds a lot like siteground has successfully spammed d.o (unless
there *was* a conscious decision to advertise them somewhere, which I
wasn't aware of). My client was also of this opinion.

All links in my issue (yay, my first issue): http://drupal.org/node/250452

Questions, since I'm a docs lurker and low on d.o karma:

SEO is a tricky thing. Very organic-looking links are sometimes part
of an SEO campaign. Can we look at this overall and decide that SG
uses some seriously shady SEO tactics, and we shouldn't be hosting
handbook pages with links to their site(s)?

Is that grounds for deletion or archiving? I'm not sure about the
archiving process, but if someone can provide guidance I'd love to
make my first edit :)

Non-docs issue: the SG employee who posted the page has also posted
elsewhere on d.o, making recommendations for SG hosting without
disclosing that her post is part of a marketing campaign, or that she
is affiliated with them. How is this normally dealt with?

Dave.
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

[John Wilkins]

Good catch Dave! This tutorial is just a bunch of links to their
website. There's no actual steps on how to do anything. Except how to
sign up with them.

I don't have docs delete privs or I would do this myself. I'll comment
more in the issue queue. (Congrats on your first issue!)

- John

John Wilkins | Drupal nickname: JohnAlbin

Post by Dave Chakrabarti
Hey all,
I had a client almost sign up for Siteground as a result of a handbook
page that was created to help their SEO. Other posts on d.o were
created by the same user to pimp Siteground, and there's been *very*
heavy criticism of their hosting / marketing / blackhat SEO tactics on
d.o and a couple of nonprofit tech mailing lists.
Other folks have also said that d.o "advertises" siteground, which
sounds a lot like siteground has successfully spammed d.o (unless
there *was* a conscious decision to advertise them somewhere, which I
wasn't aware of). My client was also of this opinion.
All links in my issue (yay, my first issue): http://drupal.org/node/250452
SEO is a tricky thing. Very organic-looking links are sometimes part
of an SEO campaign. Can we look at this overall and decide that SG
uses some seriously shady SEO tactics, and we shouldn't be hosting
handbook pages with links to their site(s)?
Is that grounds for deletion or archiving? I'm not sure about the
archiving process, but if someone can provide guidance I'd love to
make my first edit :)
Non-docs issue: the SG employee who posted the page has also posted
elsewhere on d.o, making recommendations for SG hosting without
disclosing that her post is part of a marketing campaign, or that she
is affiliated with them. How is this normally dealt with?
Dave.
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

[Benjamin Melançon]

Very glad to see an archiving procedure!

Sorry i never reported here but I did make a module to automatically
mark all nodes for no longer supported versions of Drupal with a
deprecated message:

http://drupal.org/project/term_message

I received some feedback at a Boston Drupal Meetup and wanted to make
some improvements based on that, but instead I'll tell this doc list
that I will make any changes in how the message is displayed (maybe
use hook_help instead of drupal_set_message), how the module works
(own tables instead of abusing variable_set), and who I praise
inordinately in the README to get this in use and help save the nodes.

benjamin

Agaric Design Collective
Open Source Free Software Web Development
http://agaricdesign.com/
***@agaricdesign.com
774-286-1770

Post by Hilde Austlid
Hi!

Post by Addison Berry
So when "removing" old junk from the handbook, please follow this
- Edit the title to start with "OUTDATED: "
- Move the page to the Archive book.

This procedure should be added to
http://drupal.org/documentation-writers-guide. I've made an issue
about it at http://drupal.org/node/249778. Since this is a matter of
doc guidelines, I wanted some more eyes on it, rather than just
editing the page on my own.
Hilde
(username zirvap on drupal.org)
--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/

--
Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/