Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

mummify.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#31

Post by andyroid »

theg2 wrote: post #20
tombrossman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, for those of us with Firefox's NoScript extension your site is completely broken. Nothing loads, it is just a blank page with a list of scripts you intend to run. I wasn't curious enough about your service to whitelist your site, but I will leave a comment asking that you consider providing alternate content. It is rare to have a site completely fail to load, even with all scripts blocked (though I accept I will…

You're running an extension that purposely disables what makes the majority of the web work. Unless you disable it, you can't really complain about sites not working correctly for you.

Let's hope you never need to use a screen reader.

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#32

Post by zentiggr »

theg2 wrote: post #20
tombrossman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, for those of us with Firefox's NoScript extension your site is completely broken. Nothing loads, it is just a blank page with a list of scripts you intend to run. I wasn't curious enough about your service to whitelist your site, but I will leave a comment asking that you consider providing alternate content. It is rare to have a site completely fail to load, even with all scripts blocked (though I accept I will…

You're running an extension that purposely disables what makes the majority of the web work. Unless you disable it, you can't really complain about sites not working correctly for you.

Having used noscript for a while, I've gotten into the habit of letting it block everything at first and only allowing what seems necessary for that site.

I'm perfectly okay with the 'broken until enabled' model... I used to use "Request Policy" in Firefox - the most granular control of script and XSS accesses I've ever seen. Miss it in Chrome.

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#33

Post by alok-g »

zek wrote: post #4
jboynyc wrote: post #2

Interesting in light of this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6504331 But to trust that something like this to make a permanent copy of stuff I'm linking to, I'd need to know a bit more about them. Else this is effectively like using a link shortener -- a single point of failure.

Hey creator here, we realize there is a bit of a trust issue, thats why we have the paid plans. Our costs are low enough that, even if you were our only paying customer left we would be able to keep the service running just for you.

What Web services are you using in the back-end (that may potentially shut down)? I need my data accessible for low number of decades.

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#36

Post by toomuchtodo »

Pxtl wrote: post #3

Things like this should be required when posting links in Stack Overflow and the like.

Rant: I absolutely hate when someone posts an answer in Stack Overflow and it points to their blog, which then stops working at some point. What if Wikipedia was just a collection of links to blogs or other datasources (citations aside). Put your damn answers in Stack Overflow people!

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#37

Post by toomuchtodo »

nine_k wrote: post #15

The approach is nice, the problem being solved is real. Hopefully paying customers will flock in. The question: is mummify.it itself going to go under some day? So I'll wait for an open-source analog of this service, to run on my own tiny server. (Or carve some time to write it myself, of course.)

There already is an open source analog:

http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Wget_with_WARC_ou... + http://archive.org/web/web.php

Re: Show HN: Mummify – Preserve web content, fight link rot

#38

Post by alok-g »

AznHisoka wrote: post #24

50 mummies per month for the highest plan is way way way too low. It should 10,000 or even 50,000. Think about it this way: the people who are willing to pay you for this type of service are probably huge publishers who would use this service to share their URLs to their followers in Twitter, Facebook, etc.

I would be happy with 1000 per month. Typically 10 from HN everyday and 10 from elsewhere. But I would not pay $50 per month for this.
Post reply on HN