User talk:LinkChecker

From The Uncensored Hidden Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Bugs and Reports

All reports should go here

Hosting / Web / File / Image all are being marked as down. --ST13 (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

LinkChecker

Manual Up and Down tags should be overwritten, unless they are in the Dead_Hidden_Services sub-pages. All sub-pages should be exluded from checks, including List of Defunct Hidden Services. --ST13 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Some sites incorrectly marked as down

The ipfs gateway link under Hosting / Web / File / Image#Files is marked as down because the homepage returns 404. This is expected for the ipfs gateway, since even the gateway under the official ipfs.io site [ Clearnet link! ] does the same thing. I think it would be beneficial and lead to fewer false positives if sites were marked up regardless of their response code, and down only if a connection cannot be established. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's how other link checkers would work. wowaname # C 13:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly how the Link Checker works but it recognized the site as being down until 4 hours ago and since the bot is not instantly updating the wiki it has not yet been tagged as online. As the site seems to be up for me (and the linkchecker) for now, I can not do any additional debugging. UPDATE: Seems like a big hosting provider had some issues yesterday and earlier today and that seems to have caused the down flags. For now it is recognizing the state of the service properly, I just did some checkings on the bots database and it seems to have the status recognized properly. If there are no other issues the bot will most likely tag them up during its next run. I made the LinkCheckerTest page a copy of the bitcoin services page, so we should see on there what is going to happen later. --H3ck3r (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying the issue there. I'm just quick to jump to conclusions when I know a site has been up :p wowaname # C 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Would tagging sites that are up more frequently be better? 4 hours for up sites, instead of 24? The 24 hour wait is good for down sites, because of the instability of Tor. --ST13 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Any more frequent than 24 hours and it may spam the wiki with needless edits. I think it's fine where it is. wowaname # C 20:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)