limcom wrote:That discussion about how to find the broken link when it might not be visible to the user on the page caught my attention.
Maybe I'm stupid, but why would you report a broken link on a page when the user can't click on it or see or in any way access it?
Isn't the idea to prevent bad user experience by making sure that links that someone can click on never lead to a "404 error"?
Can you help me out? Why would you consider a link that the user can't see broken, even if it points to a URL that does not exist?
This is related to the philoshopical question "What is the sound of a tree falling in the forest if there is nobody around to hear it?"
No, you are certainly not stupid, and it is a good question.
The answer lies in the fundamentally conservative approach that we have taken in eValid: If there is a potential problem eValid reports it. The thinking is that it is far better to have a few false negatives than to have ANY false positives.
So, the link is there and eValid will find it -- check to see if it unavailable and if it IS unavailable, will report it as broken. This is the safest way to go.
By the way, there is an Explanation of Key Facts About Site Analysis
that addresses this and several other interesting "factoids" about the eValid approach to site scanning.
-- The eValid Team