On Thu, 12 May 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have set
use_doc_date: True
but pages are being ranked by file modified date not by any of the
metadata dates. We are using these metadata date tags:
Why are the metatags being ignored and the file modified date being used
instead? This is a pro
Hi,
We have set
use_doc_date: True
but pages are being ranked by file modified date not by any of the metadata dates. We are using these metadata date tags:
Why are the metatags being ignored and the file modified date being used instead? This is a problem because the files are part of a
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Janine Sisk wrote:
On Feb 17, 2005, at 8:58 PM, Jim wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chuck Phillips (Console, Inc.) wrote:
I expected that enabling use_doc_date would make my modified rundig (no
-i, no -a) only update the index for pages that have newer meta dates.
I don't think th
I've setup htdig 3.2.0b6 and 3.1.6 on both Solaris 8 and Redhat 9
trying to get use_doc_date to work with my CGI scripts that output
HTML. I've applied the recommended patch to the 3.1.6 as described
here: http://www.htdig.org/mail/2000/04/0156.html
I've been going nuts for two days and must be
On Feb 17, 2005, at 8:58 PM, Jim wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chuck Phillips (Console, Inc.) wrote:
I expected that enabling use_doc_date would make my modified rundig
(no -i, no -a) only update the index for pages that have newer meta
dates.
I don't think that use_doc_date is intended to be used
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Chuck Phillips (Console, Inc.) wrote:
I expected that enabling use_doc_date would make my modified rundig (no -i,
no -a) only update the index for pages that have newer meta dates.
I don't think that use_doc_date is intended to be used in this way. By the
time htdig knows anyt
I've been going nuts for two days and must be missing something
simple or possibly misunderstanding the function of use_doc_date.
In my htdig.conf file I have the following lines:
# use meta date to determine a new page
use_doc_date: true
Within the head of each of the pages indexed I have someth
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Chuck Phillips (Console, Inc.) wrote:
I've been going nuts for two days and must be missing something simple
or possibly misunderstanding the function of use_doc_date.
In my htdig.conf file I have the following lines:
# use meta date to determine a new page
use_doc_date: true
I've setup htdig 3.2.0b6 and 3.1.6 on both Solaris 8 and Redhat 9
trying to get use_doc_date to work with my CGI scripts that output
HTML. I've applied the recommended patch to the 3.1.6 as described
here: http://www.htdig.org/mail/2000/04/0156.html
I don't know much about this patch, but it loo
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Chuck Phillips (Console, Inc.) wrote:
I've setup htdig 3.2.0b6 and 3.1.6 on both Solaris 8 and Redhat 9 trying to
get use_doc_date to work with my CGI scripts that output HTML. I've applied
the recommended patch to the 3.1.6 as described here:
http://www.htdig.org/mail/2000/
I've setup htdig 3.2.0b6 and 3.1.6 on both Solaris 8 and Redhat 9
trying to get use_doc_date to work with my CGI scripts that output
HTML. I've applied the recommended patch to the 3.1.6 as described
here: http://www.htdig.org/mail/2000/04/0156.html
I've been going nuts for two days and must be
According to Vince LaMonica:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Adam Powell wrote:
> } Is it still true that use_doc_date expects dates in ISO-8601 format
> } (-MM-DD)?
>
> Yes, as I just recently found out. Though according to RFC 1945, section
> 10.10 [for HTTP/1.0] and RFC 2068, section 14.29 [for HTT
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 11:46 AM, Adam Powell wrote:
Is it still true that use_doc_date expects dates in ISO-8601 format
(-MM-DD)?
If possible, I'd like to use meta tags with this format
20 NOVEMBER 2002
Running htdig-3.2.0 on Linux.
Newer snapshots (not sure since when) curren
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Adam Powell wrote:
} Is it still true that use_doc_date expects dates in ISO-8601 format
} (-MM-DD)?
Yes, as I just recently found out. Though according to RFC 1945, section
10.10 [for HTTP/1.0] and RFC 2068, section 14.29 [for HTTP/1.1], RFC 1123
*is* the standard date
Title: use_doc_date
Hi,
Is it still true that use_doc_date expects dates in ISO-8601 format (-MM-DD)?
If possible, I'd like to use meta tags with this format
20 NOVEMBER 2002
Running htdig-3.2.0 on Linux.
Thanks!
use_doc_date
type:
boolean
used by:
htdig
default:
false
desc
Thanks, Jim, that worked.
janine
On 7/25/02 1:24 AM, "Jim Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Janine Sisk's bits of Wed, 24 Jul 2002 translated to:
>
>> I have this line in each document being indexed:
>>
>>
>>
>> And this in my config file:
>>
>> use_doc_date: true
>>
>> But when I search
Janine Sisk's bits of Wed, 24 Jul 2002 translated to:
>I have this line in each document being indexed:
>
>
>
>And this in my config file:
>
>use_doc_date: true
>
>But when I search, the date shown on the results page for each document is
>the date the dig was run. What am I doing wrong?
There
I didn't get any answers on this - anyone? I'm really stumped.
I have this line in each document being indexed:
And this in my config file:
use_doc_date: true
But when I search, the date shown on the results page for each document is
the date the dig was run. What am I doing wrong?
I tri
18 matches
Mail list logo
