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

Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

hawaiigentech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 262 posts

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#151

Post by alisonkisk »

3pt14159 wrote: post #145
silicon2401 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Perhaps the wayback machine can help fix that by telling users to visit the authoritative site and demanding a confirmation clickthrough before showing the archived content.

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#152

Post by alisonkisk »

PaulHoule wrote: post #146
silicon2401 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Is it a deep problem? You can download content you want to keep. There are many services like evernote and pocket that can help you with it.

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#153

Post by koboll »

This seems like a problem that would be better solved by something like:

1. Browsers build in a system whereby if a link appears dead, they first check against the Wayback Machine to see if a backup exists.

2. If it does, they go there instead.

3. In return for this service, and to offset costs associated with increased traffic, they jointly agree to financially support the Internet Archive in perpetuity.

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#154

Post by [deleted] »

silicon2401 wrote: post #130
bartread wrote: post #21

I'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…

[deleted]

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#155

Post by mitchdoogle »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #121
outsomnia wrote: post #16

This is a bad idea... In the worst case one might write a cool article and get two hits, one noticing it exists, and the other from the archive service. After that it might go viral, but the author may have given up by then. The author is losing out on inbound links so google thinks their site is irrelevant and gives it a bad pagerank. All you need to do is get archive.org to take a copy at the time, you can always a…

I totally agree. I guess the answer is "don't mess with your old site", but that's also impractical. And I'm sorry, but if it's my site, then it's my site. I reserve the right to mess about with it endlessly. Including taking down a post for whatever reason I like. I'm sorry if that conflicts with someone else's need for everything to stay the same but it's my site. Also, if you're linking to my article, and I decide…

I certainly don't know about legal rights, but I think the ethical thing is to make sure that any writings published as freely accessible should remain so forever. What would people think if an author went into every library in the world to yank out one of their books they no longer want to be seen?

I do think the author is wrong to immediately post links to archived versions of sources. At the least, he could link to both the original and archived.

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#156

Post by [deleted] »

silicon2401 wrote: post #130
bartread wrote: post #21

I'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…

[deleted]

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#157

Post by asdfman123 »

> So in Feb 14 2019 your users would have seen the content you intended. However in Sep 07 2020, your users are being asked to support independent Journalism instead.

Can you believe it? Yesterday, I tried to walk out of the grocery store with a head of lettuce for free, and they instead were more interested in making me pay money to support the grocery and agricultural business!

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#159

Post by marcus_holmes »

mitchdoogle wrote: post #155
marcus_holmes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree. I guess the answer is "don't mess with your old site", but that's also impractical. And I'm sorry, but if it's my site, then it's my site. I reserve the right to mess about with it endlessly. Including taking down a post for whatever reason I like. I'm sorry if that conflicts with someone else's need for everything to stay the same but it's my site. Also, if you're linking to my article, and I decide…

I certainly don't know about legal rights, but I think the ethical thing is to make sure that any writings published as freely accessible should remain so forever. What would people think if an author went into every library in the world to yank out one of their books they no longer want to be seen? I do think the author is wrong to immediately post links to archived versions of sources. At the least, he could link t…

I'm not sure I agree. I know that journalism (as a discipline) considers this ethical. I kinda get that this is part of the newspaper industry as a public service - that withdrawing publication of something, or changing it without alerting the reader to the change, alters the historical record.

But no-one has a problem with other creative industries withdrawing their publications. Film-makers are forever deciding that movies are no longer available, for purely commercial reasons. Why is writing different? Why is pulling your books from a library unethical but pulling your movie from distribution is OK?

I think we either need to extend this to all creative activity, or reconsider it for writing.

Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content

#160

Post by TeMPOraL »

alisonkisk wrote: post #152
PaulHoule wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Is it a deep problem? You can download content you want to keep. There are many services like evernote and pocket that can help you with it.

It is, because it ultimately comes down to owner's control of how their content is being used.

For example, a modern news site will want the ability to define which text is "authoritative", and make modifications to it on the fly, including unpublishing it. As a reader OTOH, I want a permanent, immutable copy of everything said site ever publishes, so that silent edits and unpublishing is not possible. These two perspectives are in conflict, and that conflict repeats itself throughout the entire web.

Post reply on HN