On the same topic, I wish I could link with highlights in the page. Having a spec for highlights in URLS would be neat.
Chrome 80 supports this: https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/4733392803332096
Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
141–150 of 262 posts
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#142Is there a chrome app that utilises waybackmachine?
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#143While I generally disagree because I'd rather my site was the one getting the hits—and I would rather give the same courtesy to other authors—this does give me the idea of checking (or creating if none exists) an archive link of whatever I reference, and include that archive link in the metadata of every link I include.
Users will find the archive link if they really want to, and it will make it easier for me to replace broken links in the future.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be nice if there's an automatic way to have a link revert to the Wayback Machine once the original link stops working. I can't think of an easy way to do that, though.
I just use a bookmarklet javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href.replace(/\/$/,%20''))); (which is only slightly less convenient than what others have already pointed out — the FF extension and Brave built-in feature).
Another nice solution is to create a "search engine" for https://web.archive.org/web/*/%s you can then just add the keyword before the URL (For example I type `w `). Search engines like this are supported by chrome and firefox.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#145I'm not sure I'm a fan of this because it just turns WayBackMachine into another content silo. It's called the world wide web for a reason, and this isn't helping. I can see it for corporate sites where they change content, remove pages, and break links without a moment's consideration. But for my personal site, for example, I'd much rather you link to me directly rather than content in WayBackMachine. Apart from any…
> But for my personal site, for example, I'd much rather you link to me directly rather than content in WayBackMachine. That would make sense if users were archiving your site for your benefit, but they're probably not. If I were to archive your site, it's because I want my own bookmarks/backups/etc to be more reliable than just a link, not because I'm looking out to preserve your website. Otherwise, I'm just gamblin…
The issue is that if this becomes widespread then we're going to get into copyright claims against the wayback machine. When I write content it is mine. I don't even let Facebook crawlers index it because I don't want it appearing on their platform. I'm happy to have wayback machine archive it, but that's with the understanding that it is a backup, not an authoritative or primary source.
Ideally, links would be able to handle 404s and fallback. Like we can do with images and srcset in html. That way if my content goes away we have a backup. I can still write updates to a blog piece or add translations that people send in and everyone benefits from the dynamic nature of content, while still being able to either fallback or verify content at the time it was publish via the wayback machine.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#146I'm not sure I'm a fan of this because it just turns WayBackMachine into another content silo. It's called the world wide web for a reason, and this isn't helping. I can see it for corporate sites where they change content, remove pages, and break links without a moment's consideration. But for my personal site, for example, I'd much rather you link to me directly rather than content in WayBackMachine. Apart from any…
> But for my personal site, for example, I'd much rather you link to me directly rather than content in WayBackMachine. That would make sense if users were archiving your site for your benefit, but they're probably not. If I were to archive your site, it's because I want my own bookmarks/backups/etc to be more reliable than just a link, not because I'm looking out to preserve your website. Otherwise, I'm just gamblin…
It's a deep problem with the web as we know it.
If I want to make a "scrapbook" to support a research project of some kind. Really I want to make a "pyramid" with a general overview that is at most a few pages at the top, then some documents that are more detailed, but with the original reference material incorporated and linked to what it supports.
In 2020 much of that reference material will come from the web and you are left with doing the "webby" thing (linking) which is doomed to fall victim to broken links or with archiving the content which is OK for personal use, but will not be OK with the content owners if you make it public. You could say the public web is also becoming a cess pool/crime scene, where even reputable web sites are suspected of pervasive click fraud, where the line between marketing and harassment gets harder to see every day.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#147This man’s entire argument is completely terrible for two reasons: 1) The example he uses is The Epoch Times, a questionable source even on the best of days. 2) What he refers to as “spam” is a paywall. He is literally taking away from business opportunities for this outlet that produced a piece of content he wants to draw attention to, but he does not want to otherwise support. He’s a taker. And while the Wayback Ma…
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times
They're hyper right wing Qanon/antivax spreaders associated with the Falun Gong movement.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just use a bookmarklet javascript:void(window.open('https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href.replace(/\/$/,%20''))); (which is only slightly less convenient than what others have already pointed out — the FF extension and Brave built-in feature).
Another nice solution is to create a "search engine" for https://web.archive.org/web/*/%s you can then just add the keyword before the URL (For example I type ` w `). Search engines like this are supported by chrome and firefox.
I would love for there to be a site that redirected eg. better.site/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzwMjOl8Iyo to https://invidious.site/watch?v=jzwMjOl8Iyo so I could easily open YouTube links with Invidious, and the same for Twitter→Nitter, Instagram→bibliogram, Google Maps → OSM, etc without having to manually remove the beginning of the URL. I’d presume someone on HN has the skill to do this similarly to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24344127
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another nice solution is to create a "search engine" for https://web.archive.org/web/*/%s you can then just add the keyword before the URL (For example I type ` w `). Search engines like this are supported by chrome and firefox.
I would love for there to be a site that redirected eg. better.site/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzwMjOl8Iyo to https://invidious.site/watch?v=jzwMjOl8Iyo so I could easily open YouTube links with Invidious, and the same for Twitter→Nitter, Instagram→bibliogram, Google Maps → OSM, etc without having to manually remove the beginning of the URL. I’d presume someone on HN has the skill to do this similarly to https:…
You can make a "search engine" or bookmarklet that is a javascript/data URL that does whatever URL mangling you need. (Other than some minor escaping issues).
Something like the following should work. You can add more logic to supoort all of the sites with the same script or make one per site.
javascript:document.location="%s".replace(/^https:\/\/www.youtube.com/, "https://invidious.site")
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was first implemented in Firefox, as an experiment, and is now an extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/ro/firefox/addon/wayback-machine_...
I used this extension for a while but had to stop due to frequent false positives. YMMV
There exists a manual extension called Resurrect Pages for Firefox 57+, with Google Cache, archive.is, Wayback Machine, and WebCite.