I repeat.
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark. That’s not shoving anything aside. It’s telling you that the info is still dependable. Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
You don't have to repeat. All you have to say is "You were right and I was wrong. I posted stale inaccurate data, through inadvertently submitting it with the wrong publishing date-stamp."
Another thread not long afterward had roughly the same results.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. Even the responses to this thread showed that significant changes had taken place over the elapsed three years. "Roughly" is not taking responsibility for giving the right data in the wrong time frame.
So, old data or not, it was still in the ballpark.
If you were only interested in FR positioning in the pack, yeah, ballpark. But not the precise relationships of every other site.
That’s not shoving anything aside.
It is.
It’s telling you that the info is still dependable.
Not for each and every site in the slate. The information was valid only for the date it was first published. The ranking is clearly time-dependent, with significant changes.
Therefore, you can say to your friends, “this is how FR ranked X years ago, and it’s roughly the same today.”
What have my friends to do with this debate? Why are you introducing that dimension? Where are you going with this?
If you want to be faithful to the image and credibility of FR, just admit to having made a mistake in dating the stale information. That's not hard, is it? I am assuming that for sure the mis-dating of the publication of the article was merely an oversight, am I not?
It's something like saying,"Yesterday this was oats. Today it is still oats. The horse only used it once overnight."