Screenshots Forever and Ever Until You Can’t Stand it

Post by arethuza » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #30

R_Edward wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean to tell me that those crates of my dad's 78 rpm records sitting in my basement might actually be worth something? I was thinking about playing them on a 33.3 rpm turntable into my PC, then using Audacity to speed them up to 78, just to be able to hear the music again, and by association, remember my dad. Geeze, there must be at least a hundred of 'em down there, at least!

Google the work of philip jeck (samples on youtube) for hugely emotional use of the old sounds. Try and get hold of an actual 78 rpm turntable, the old dansettes could do those speeds as could the cheaper separate turntables that had ceramic cartridges with two 'sides' (78/33). Enjoy

Post by jerf » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #31

jerf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure, buying one is expensive, but you're just looking to use one. You only need one to share amongst whomever else you can find who has this need, and the Internet is really good at bringing those sorts of people together. You could Kickstart your way up to owning one of these, just as one idea. (Or work with somebody else to take it on, etc. etc., whatever.)

Kickstarter is an interesting option, never thought of that. You could jumpstart a service that digitizes rare recordings as a service and make them available. Likely there'd be all sorts of copyright issues with a service like that but the basic principle is useful.

Post by bjt » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #21

jleader wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago I talked to an IA engineer, who said they were planning on dealing with this by not crawling sites whose nameservers were known to point to a domain parking company. The idea was that if they never retrieved the robots.txt, they wouldn't retroactively apply it. I don't know if that filtering out of parking nameservers ever happened, and it wouldn't help for parked domains whose robots.txt they'd alrea…

But why retroactively remove the data? The original owner was fine with holding it, why should the snapshot be deleted because a completely different person wants his completely different website to not be crawled?

Post by randomdestructn » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

R_Edward wrote: post #27

jmduke wrote: post #3

I've been thinking a lot the past few weeks about the preservation of art and goods in general. I think it comes from two main sources: 1. Maciej Ceglowski (`idlewords) has been talking a lot recently about link rot. Recently, he found that 25% of items pinned a mere five years ago were dead links and 17% from only three years ago were dead [^1]. That's an incredibly high rate -- and, selfishly, one I'm noticing as m…

Do you mean to tell me that those crates of my dad's 78 rpm records sitting in my basement might actually be worth something? I was thinking about playing them on a 33.3 rpm turntable into my PC, then using Audacity to speed them up to 78, just to be able to hear the music again, and by association, remember my dad. Geeze, there must be at least a hundred of 'em down there, at least!

Post by db48x » Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 5:31 AM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #37

bjt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for a bot to understand concepts of 'owner' and 'completely different person' based on the data they have available. Companies can use this robots.txt feature to un-index old marketing content after a re-branding, for example. Or after an acquisition.

Sure, but, surely, the bot has timestamps saying "robots.txt allowed me to keep these documents last time I spidered them". Why do they have to be retroactively removed? robots.txt only disallows spidering, it doesn't mandate that you should delete all the data you've already spidered.