UPDATE: Wednesday, April 15, 2009:
Before I wrote the original post below, the Technorati indexing of this site went from up-to-date to backwards 6 days. It deleted what was already in their database.
While I was writing the original post, the Technorati indexing of this site went back to being up-to-date.
Today, I checked again. The indexing is now backwards again by 3 days.
What are they doing? Are they really running a business that is going to last much longer?
From a pure technological standpoint, I liked Technorati's concept the first time I saw it. There were aspects with which I took exception, of course. Regardless, they just have never seemed to be able to pull it together for very long. I don't know exactly on what they base their site scanning. It was rss feed but always more than that since it picked up all the outgoing links on the homepage. Whenever I had trouble with the rss feed, there was trouble with Technorati indexing. Those times were not Technorati's problem, per se. However, the feed has been functioning just fine (validating just fine) for a long time and loading fairly quickly too, so why the rash of problems?
This is what I get over at http://feedvalidator.org: "Congratulations! This is a valid RSS feed." That's as of the date of this post.
FEED Validator is a great service that I have used and appreciated. Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda deserve credit for it. They put some work into it since it tells you the problems and highlights and cross links to them right on the page. Wow! is that not helpful?
Technorati has been changing over to a new system and claims to have been working through some 17 million sites. There were some days there when they acknowledged the hitches in the transitioning, but those few days don't explain the repeated problems with Technorati.
I do feel for them. Make no mistake. Complex computer technology can be extremely frustrating, as anyone who works at it can personally attest.
Now, I don't put this here to bash Technorati. I put this here to get the word out and perhaps have it sink in over there.
They need to stop overwriting their database with older content.
The following is what I posted to them on their troubleshooting page under "indexing and updating issues" and "Most recent posts not indexed AND "Last Updated" date IS NOT updating?":
Why has the indexing on my [they treat blogs this way even though this blog isn't "mine" alone] site gone backwards again? Yesterday, the index was up-to-date. Today, it's 7 days old. Overwrite only if newer. That's easy. I do it all the time. Anyway, I hope this helps you. By the way, your latest blog-status report shows "March 13, 2009." That's mighty stale for a company with a staff of some 3 dozen.
Now, if they can't do that, I can't see how they'll survive in the cutthroat capitalistic system, can you?
That was concerning . While I was writing this, they updated the index. How long will it last? That's the fastest turnaround I've ever seen with a trouble ticket. Perhaps my manual ping did the trick, but I shouldn't have to monitor Technorati to see if their indexing goes backwards and then manually ping them. Besides, manually pinging hasn't worked in the past. I've manually pinged them for some 40 days in a row before to no avail.
Well, may God bless them with But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33 ASV)
Technology is only as good as the first motivation. If it comes out from unselfishness, it is good. If not (if it comes out from selfishness), it is evil at its core. It can be used against itself and is. Satan's house is divided. That's why it's always falling apart into death until the end.
There is no end to existence. There are only ends of ages and worlds. There is blackout. There's unconsciousness. However, the unconscious can be brought back by God at anytime. What state are they in when they are unconscious, nonexistence? They don't know it at the time, but they exist as God alone defines. It's divine semantics here. It's contextual with the whole being the context. You see?