[Goose]

---

<snip>

interesting, my phone didn’t say it was updated, but when I looked on my iPAD, it says it was updated 6 days ago.  Nation World News is based in India, where it is already the 10th, so it makes sense.

Good! There for a while I thought I was going off the deep end. I just uploaded an image showing the update when I saw your revision here. Thank goodness!

That being said, there is no indication of when the article was originally written, and it really is unusual to update an article months after the fact.  But the clincher is that it refers to recent events.  The meeting with Stoltenberg and Martin happened the day before it was published, and it states that Stoltenberg visited Washington “last week”.

Actually not. Lots of the articles on Ukraine get continuously updated, which makes it very confusing. Often the updated article bears little or no resemblance to the original. Ukrayinska Pravda does this frequently. Not sure that is the case here however.

And he did visit Washington at the beginning of June.  So, even if updated 6 days ago, I don’t think it was written more than 7 days ago, and, as I said, Google parsed the date wrong.





BC

BC, my whole point is that Google doesn't get their dates by parsing the article. Besides the problems of misinterpreting the date in the text (as you hypothesize here), as I pointed out before, what is the date of an article that contains no date? Undefined? That clearly wouldn't work. Date searches could never find it. Also, what about articles that contain multiple dates? Which do you pick? If I post a newspaper article tomorrow written in 1950 that contains the date 1950, what is it's "date"? 1950? Nope.

I am almost certain (after a bit of experimenting) that Google uses the "post date", which is the creation date of the file referenced in the URL. You can get both the creation date and the last modified date for any given url, at least most of the time (I have no counter-examples). These dates are "canonical" in that they do not rely on the external representation of the date, so the question of how the date is "written" does not exist. It is true that these dates may not be literally "correct", in that I may write something a year ago and post it today with a brand new file created today. Still, giving today's date to such a post is arguably correct. So, if Google thinks the url I cited was created in April, it is pretty likely it was. Now, as to what the original article said, I can't say. I can only say it was about Erdogan, Finland and NATO.

[Goose]

---

<snip>

interesting, my phone didn’t say it was updated, but when I looked on my iPAD, it says it was updated 6 days ago.  Nation World News is based in India, where it is already the 10th, so it makes sense.

Good! There for a while I thought I was going off the deep end. I just uploaded an image showing the update when I saw your revision here. Thank goodness!

That being said, there is no indication of when the article was originally written, and it really is unusual to update an article months after the fact.  But the clincher is that it refers to recent events.  The meeting with Stoltenberg and Martin happened the day before it was published, and it states that Stoltenberg visited Washington “last week”.

Actually not. Lots of the articles on Ukraine get continuously updated, which makes it very confusing. Often the updated article bears little or no resemblance to the original. Ukrayinska Pravda does this frequently. Not sure that is the case here however.

And he did visit Washington at the beginning of June.  So, even if updated 6 days ago, I don’t think it was written more than 7 days ago, and, as I said, Google parsed the date wrong.





BC

BC, my whole point is that Google doesn't get their dates by parsing the article. Besides the problems of misinterpreting the date in the text (as you hypothesize here), as I pointed out before, what is the date of an article that contains no date? Undefined? That clearly wouldn't work. Date searches could never find it. Also, what about articles that contain multiple dates? Which do you pick? If I post a newspaper article tomorrow written in 1950 that contains the date 1950, what is it's "date"? 1950? Nope.

I am almost certain (after a bit of experimenting) that Google uses the "post date", which is the creation date of the file referenced in the URL. You can get both the creation date and the last modified date for any given url, at least most of the time (I have no counter-examples). These dates are "canonical" in that they do not rely on the external representation of the date, so the question of how the date is "written" does not exist. It is true that these dates may not be literally "correct", in that I may write something a year ago and post it today with a brand new file created today. Still, giving today's date to such a post is arguably correct. So, if Google thinks the url I cited was created in April, it is pretty likely it was. Now, as to what the original article said, I can't say. I can only say it was about Erdogan, Finland and NATO.