In a bit of Huffington Post SEO, I just learned that the nominal date in the URL like ...com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;22&#x2F;cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine_n_7267518.html is meaningless.<p>This is a repost of <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9547302" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9547302</a> from some months back (and three comments). Only that posting linked to ...com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;14&#x2F;cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine_n_7267518.html , which has the same supposed timestamp inside the article, 05&#x2F;14&#x2F;2015 .<p>In fact, I&#x27;ll rewrite the URL so it appears to be from Christmas 1995; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.huffingtonpost.com&#x2F;1995&#x2F;12&#x2F;25&#x2F;cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine_n_7267518.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.huffingtonpost.com&#x2F;1995&#x2F;12&#x2F;25&#x2F;cuba-lung-cancer-va...</a> . It points to the same thing.<p>Is this common practice these days?