So that may technically true, but I don’t think that’s what people are complaining about. Consider my search this morning.
I’m documenting something and trying to include a link explaining the newtype pattern, case a reader hasn’t seen it. So I go to Google and type “rust newtype” (linked so you can follow along if you want).
The first link says “1.0.0” in the URL, so I assume it’s probably wrong and skip it. (It happens to be pretty accurate, but this isn’t true in the general case.)
The second link is rust by example, which doesn’t explain it the way I’d like.
The third link says Advanced Types and looks perfect. It gives me a “buzz off” stub page in response.
That is, someone actually went in and replaced the old book’s contents with placeholder pages. I think this is what @Riateche is referring to.
It offers a link to the current version of the book. Great! I would like to link to a current version. I click on it… and I get the book’s foreword.
So I go to the tiny low-contrast magnifying glass and enter “newtype”. The first search result says “Advanced Types” … promising, that’s what the page I was trying to visit was called … and so I click it and get the new Advanced Types page.
Which is… wait for it… exactly the same title, chapter, and section number as the old one. But I had to follow several links and search again to find it.
This ended happily after some legwork, but I’m currently teaching Rust to a team and we hit stuff like this daily. If the old version of the book were still online with a simple warning banner at the top of the page, I think it would be less confusing overall.