201–210 of 477 posts
It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually it is because the rights have reverted to the author and the publisher no longer has rights to publish the book. Meanwhile, the author doesn't own the rights to the cover art/design so they can't just put it up either. I'm not sure how else you'd want to handle it.
> I'm not sure how else you'd want to handle it. By having a minimum amount of foresight and putting into the initial contract an agreement which lets the parties maintain the online availability in a mutualy agreeable way.
It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)
Can't you?
I thought everyone with an account could upload. If it'd stay, is another question and they'd definitely not archive against the expressed will of copyright holder, but you could give it a try.
Its sad that Vice feels like they can only gain value from social media and YouTube. I feel like the best part of the internet is dying (good written detailed content), but the worst part of it is surviving and thriving: social media (short lived, low quality, clickbaity, dopamine chasing content).
I think YouTube is the counter argument to this - long form content from passionate people has taken off pretty good there. Perhaps it's just me, but it seriously makes the rest of social media look like an absolute trashfire by comparison.
If you’re a grouchy mechanic and do boring videos of exactly how to do brakes on every car, that’s incredibly useful, but not subscribeable (unless your grouchiness becomes a meme).
I feel bad for the one guy that did 1 perfect video on how to fix&overhaul my garage door opener. But he won’t see a cent even as YouTube puts ads on it anyway and takes 100%.
Meanwhile on blogs etc with Adsense, you could monetize immediately. That’s how i started out and figured out what worked. Went from $2/month, to 20 to 200 to 2000 for a while. Lots of random articles. Didn’t care to become a “platform” (new users that visit and never come back are the best ad-clickers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway I 100% don't get it when websites with lots of content and good SEO just delete everything. Fatwallet (fuck you Rakuten). Yahoo Answers (hey, I didn't say good content). Even on my own Drupal blogs that I didn't want to maintain/update anymore, I did a giant curl job, recursively regex'd out the login/comment submission fields and dumped them on…
Those Yahoo Groups could be a trove of niche, otherwise uncollected information, especially with regard to vintage or specialty electronics. Removing them was a huge loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or even Digg... Lots of comments and discussions lost.
This is why I post on slashdot. They've passed the test of time (but not UIs, fuck beta). Looks like their first posts in '97 start here: https://slashdot.org/?page=8582 dunno what their december 31st, 1969 posts are after that (errors? intentional de-ranking?) Newspapers have a bad history of "experimenting" with enabling online comments and then deciding the experiment failed and delete them all. You're a newspaper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was a lot of fun earlier on with their magazine and tales of underworld stuff. They really screwed up by trying to become some kind of media empire. Was a bad sign when they made a cable channel.
I remember when Gavin McInness was still making content for them. Their strength was always to have stories and bits that no where else would. Not sure how much they strayed from that in the last 5-10 years but they almost never showed up on my radar anymore
It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)
> It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway I 100% don't get it when websites with lots of content and good SEO just delete everything. Fatwallet (fuck you Rakuten). Yahoo Answers (hey, I didn't say good content). Even on my own Drupal blogs that I didn't want to maintain/update anymore, I did a giant curl job, recursively regex'd out the login/comment submission fields and dumped them on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gave up a domain I used to own in the last year or so. It was a mildly popular site that had been around for about a decade. Within a few months someone else had snapped it up, created a site, used the same content (I assume from the Internet archive), and was using it to link farm. At least that's what I thought when I saw the new site with a few links that were not there before. I only discovered it because they…
i have the same, but they put porn links everywhere and it mildly damages reputation of ex-employees.
https://jalopnik.com/maryland-license-plate-url-directs-gamb...