On 15/07/2020 15:57, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:23:30AM +0100, Jonny Grant wrote: >>> It's a common mistake. I agree that more prominently mentioning >>> the version would help. Including it in the file name seems like >>> a simple enough change. >>> >>> The manual does mention the GCC version (the cover page of the PDF >>> copy of the manual says "For GCC version 11.0.0 (pre-release), and >>> the Introduction section of the HTML version says "corresponds to >>> the compilers (GCC) version 11.0.0." That's helpful but not as >>> much as if every page mentioned it at the top (for the HTML, it >>> would have to be in the browser title bar), and if the URL of >>> development version also included it. >> >> Good morning Martin, >> >> Thank you for your reply. >> Would be good if the version be added to the pager and even the URL as "beta". > > A much bigger problem is that google likes to have just some (old!) > versions at the top of the search results. It could help if all those > pages had a nice header letting you navigate to other versions? (It > already *is* in the URL, but that is only useful for people who know > that already, completely not the goal!) > > (Hey I can dream, can't I :-) ) > > > Segher > It might be worth adding 2.95 to the robots.txt, and any others that are more than 3 years old? https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc.html Let's help search engines not bring older releases to the top of search results Cheers, Jonny
