| Messages in This Topic |
|---|
| 1. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 4:10AM omatic (a member) wrote:  omatic Member Since: February 2003 My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. | Subject: Database problems again This has been one heck of a week! There was another database glitch overnight, so if you notice anything strange, please report it here. I believe everything is OK, but you never know. | |
|
| 2. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 5:03AM Man From Michigan (a member) replied:  Man From Michigan Member Since: July 2007 Style, with no substance. Yep, that's me. Style, with no substance. Yep, that's me. | Um, should I be seeing naked photos of Ernest Borgnine at the top and bottom of the screen?
Oh wait! He just morphed into a bald Faye Dunaway.
Never mind, I think it may just be the meds. | |
|
| 3. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 1:03PM omatic (a member) replied: omatic Member Since: February 2003 My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. | That's disturbing - to say the least!! | |
|
| 4. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 3:02PM omatic (a member) replied: omatic Member Since: February 2003 My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. | This is a follow-up test post. Ignore it. | |
|
| 5. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 8:50PM harnessg (a member) replied:  harnessg Member Since: July 2003 | Just got a couple hundred posts via the RSS feed. All with no title and appearing to be older messages...
Glen | |
|
| 6. On Saturday, January 17th, 2009 at 11:18PM omatic (a member) replied: omatic Member Since: February 2003 My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. | You must be using Google Reader, right Glen? The feed was temporarily messed up, because entries had bad dates during the data fixes I did. Unfortunately, Google caches them and screws it up royally. Un-publishing the entries does no good. The Big G owns your butt by then. Even if you're not using Google, other news aggregators may use a similar technique.
But, ironically, if you examine the raw feed directly, it's 100% correct! It's how certain aggregators cache entries that messes it up. I Googled around - it's actually a pretty big annoyance vexing many bloggers, too. And there appears no way to request that they flush their cache. Pretty lame.
In the next few days, I may relocate the feed with a new filename, hence dumping the old URL. That should fix the problem if it doesn't clear up by then. The new feed will never have had the bad entries in it, to begin with.
Anyway - stick around - a fix is on the way before long! I have to work around their ridiculously slow re-crawl pace, too, which doesn't speed things up at all. They only pick up the feed about every 5-6 hours, unless you're CNN, Microsoft, or some other high volume domain like that. It's kinda sucky. | |
|
| 7. On Sunday, January 18th, 2009 at 1:03AM harnessg (a member) replied: harnessg Member Since: July 2003 | Yeah, Google reader.
I figured it had something to do with the database once I saw that they were old posts. Just marked them as read...
Glen | |
|
| 8. On Sunday, January 18th, 2009 at 1:36PM omatic (a member) replied: omatic Member Since: February 2003 My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. My wife and I were happy for 30 years. Then we met each other. | After thinking about it a bit longer, and considering the inconvenience to feed subscribers if I change the feed URL, I think I'm just going to leave it be. People only care about the newest things on a feed anyway, so the bad ones will 'age off' naturally after a week or two.
>> marked them as read
Yep, I did the same. | |
|
Next Topic (2542)
