Noissue - Add Google Search Console verification file

Noissue - Add Google Search Console verification file

We used to have a verification file for this (back then it was still called
"Google Webmaster Tools") on adblockplus.org, but it seemed to have disappeared
during the website migration.

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-08-18 11:36:42]

Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how we used
to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we DID have
a verification file.

There are other verification methods we could use, e.g. a DNS record or meta
tag. I personally prefer the file, because it's the least intrusive one, and
doesn't require access to any other systems.

[Wladimir Palant, 2015-08-18 12:07:49]

On 2015/08/18 11:36:42, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how we used
> to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we DID
have
> a verification file.

We've actually had four of them, still in the servercontent repository.

LGTM

[saroyanm, 2015-08-18 12:35:30]

On 2015/08/18 12:07:49, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> On 2015/08/18 11:36:42, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how we
used
> > to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we DID
> have
> > a verification file.
> 
> We've actually had four of them, still in the servercontent repository.
> 
> LGTM

I think we don't need to add this file because we already have the DNS record
for that. 
@greiner aligned with @matze regarding that while ago. 
So this issue irrelevant I think.

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-08-18 13:35:29]

On 2015/08/18 12:35:30, saroyanm wrote:
> On 2015/08/18 12:07:49, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > On 2015/08/18 11:36:42, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > > Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how we
> used
> > > to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we DID
> > have
> > > a verification file.
> > 
> > We've actually had four of them, still in the servercontent repository.
> > 
> > LGTM
> 
> I think we don't need to add this file because we already have the DNS record
> for that. 
> @greiner aligned with @matze regarding that while ago. 
> So this issue irrelevant I think.

I see, so there actually is a verification record, it's apparently just not
being used. I'll ask Matze then.

[saroyanm, 2015-08-18 13:39:13]

On 2015/08/18 13:35:29, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> On 2015/08/18 12:35:30, saroyanm wrote:
> > On 2015/08/18 12:07:49, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > > On 2015/08/18 11:36:42, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > > > Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how
we
> > used
> > > > to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we
DID
> > > have
> > > > a verification file.
> > > 
> > > We've actually had four of them, still in the servercontent repository.
> > > 
> > > LGTM
> > 
> > I think we don't need to add this file because we already have the DNS
record
> > for that. 
> > @greiner aligned with @matze regarding that while ago. 
> > So this issue irrelevant I think.
> 
> I see, so there actually is a verification record, it's apparently just not
> being used. I'll ask Matze then.

I do think the website is verified, at least I can't see any message in
webmaster tools saying that it's not verified.

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-08-18 13:40:47]

On 2015/08/18 13:39:13, saroyanm wrote:
> On 2015/08/18 13:35:29, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > On 2015/08/18 12:35:30, saroyanm wrote:
> > > On 2015/08/18 12:07:49, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> > > > On 2015/08/18 11:36:42, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > > > > Added Wladimir as a reviewer here because he most likely remembers how
> we
> > > used
> > > > > to handle that before the website migration. If I recall correclty, we
> DID
> > > > have
> > > > > a verification file.
> > > > 
> > > > We've actually had four of them, still in the servercontent repository.
> > > > 
> > > > LGTM
> > > 
> > > I think we don't need to add this file because we already have the DNS
> record
> > > for that. 
> > > @greiner aligned with @matze regarding that while ago. 
> > > So this issue irrelevant I think.
> > 
> > I see, so there actually is a verification record, it's apparently just not
> > being used. I'll ask Matze then.
> 
> I do think the website is verified, at least I can't see any message in
> webmaster tools saying that it's not verified.

Then it seems like, instead of giving multiple people access to one Google
Search Console account, we've created multiple accounts... Would explain why we
had multiple verification files before. Alright, closing this one, we should
rather add everyone to the verified account.