Link the write-up from the README - #1
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The published article links here through its repo field; nothing here pointed back. Anyone arriving at the repo had no way to find the account of why the politeness limiter took three attempts. Also removes crawler-politeness-draft.md, the draft that became that article, which has nothing the article does not. Its only unique lines are the original title, the two Hacker News paragraphs cut before publishing, and a closing pointer to this repo that the post now handles through its own metadata. Keeping a stale copy of a live article in the repo it describes is worse than not having it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The published article links to this repo through its
repo:field. Nothing here pointed back, so anyone arriving at the repo had no route to the account of why the politeness limiter took three attempts.Link verified: 200.
It also removes
crawler-politeness-draft.mdThat file was the draft that became the article, sitting untracked in this repo. I checked whether anything in it was worth keeping first: the section structure is identical to the published post, and of 63 sentences only six were unique.
Those six are the original title, the two Hacker News paragraphs cut before publishing, and a closing "the code is on GitHub" line that the post now handles through its own metadata. It also carried 13 em dashes the published version does not.
So there was no version of updating it that produced anything but a duplicate of a file already in the site repo, and a stale copy of a live article, in the repo that article is about, is worse than none.
It was untracked, so it does not appear in the diff.
One thing to fix outside this PR
The first push was rejected with GH007, email privacy. This repo has a local
user.emailofswheeler@apu.edu, which overrides your global23089578+Megapixel99@users.noreply.github.com. Every commit already onmainhere uses the noreply address, so the local override is newer than they are.I amended this commit to the noreply address. The local config is still set, so the next commit made in this repo will hit the same wall, and it would have put your university address into public commit metadata if the privacy setting had not caught it:
🤖 Generated with Claude Code