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

161–170 of 262 posts

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

#161

Post by bartread »

alisonkisk wrote: post #151
3pt14159 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic or serious.

People on here (rightly) spend a lot of time complaining about how user experience on the web is becoming terrible due to ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, endless cookie banners, consent forms, and miscellaneous GDPR nonsense, all of which get in the way of whatever it is you're trying to read or watch, and all of it on top of the more run-of-the-mill UX snafus with which people casually litter their sites.

Your idea boils down to adding another layer of consent clicking to the mess, to implement a semi-manual redirect through the WayBackMachine for every link clicked. That's ridiculous.

I have to believe you're being ironic because nobody could seriously think this is a good idea.

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

#162

Post by robotron »

ffpip wrote: post #39
kilroy123 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. I forgot how you can do that. I just use the extension myself: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wayback-machi...

Yeah. That requires access to all sites. I wasn't comfortable adding another addon with that permission. The permission is just for a simple reason and should be off by default. It is so you can right click a link on any page and select 'archive' from the menu. Small function, but requires access to all sites.

The source is available if you want to know what's going on with those permissions: https://github.com/internetarchive/wayback-machine-chrome

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

#163

Post by nikisweeting »

Or link to your own archive of the content with ArchiveBox!

That way we're not all completely reliant on a central system. (ArchiveBox submits your links to Archive.org in addition to saving them locally).

https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox

Also many other tools that can do this too:

https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving-Comm...

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

#164

Post by nikisweeting »

akavel wrote: post #87
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…

Or: snapshot a WARC archive of the site locally, then start serving it only in case the original goes down. For extra street cred, seed it to IPFS. (A.k.a. one of too many projects on my To Build One Day list.)

ArchiveBox is built for exactly this use-case :)

https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox

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

#165

Post by nikisweeting »

alfonsodev wrote: post #81
deepstack wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah at some point, way back machine need to be on webttorrent, ipfs type of thing where it is immutable.

it's there any active project perusing this idea ?

The largest active project doing this (to my knowledge) is the Inter-Planetary Wayback Machine:

https://github.com/oduwsdl/ipwb

There have been many other attempts though, including internetarchive.bak on IPFS, which ended up failing because it was too much data.

http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK/i...

http://brewster.kahle.org/2015/08/11/locking-the-web-open-a-...

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

#166

Post by Sargos »

Taek wrote: post #114
alfonsodev wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's there any active project perusing this idea ?

https://github.com/exp0nge/wayback Here's an extension to archive pages on Skynet, which is similar to IPFS but uses financial compensation to ensure availability and reliability. I don't know if the author intends to continue developing this idea or if it was a one-off for a hackathon.

FileCoin is the incentivization layer for IPFS, both built by Protocol Labs.

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

#167

Post by nikisweeting »

cornedor wrote: post #4

But how certain is the future of WayBackMachine, when disaster strikes, all your links are dead. On the other hand, the original links can still be read from the url, so the original reference is not completely gone.

So archive your links yourself with one of the many local-web-archiving tools.

https://webrecorder.io

https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox

https://github.com/pirate/ArchiveBox/wiki/Web-Archiving-Comm...

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

#168

Post by pingpongchef »

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…

You can go down this road, but it looks like you're advocating for each party to simply do whatever he wants. In which case the viewing party will continue to value archiving.

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

#169

Post by nikisweeting »

spqr233 wrote: post #129

I made a chrome extension called Capsule that works perfectly for this use case. With just a click, you can create a publically shareable link that preserves the webpage exactly as you see it in your browser. https://capsule.click

Does it use SingleFile under-the-hood? What storage format does this use, is it portable? e.g. WARC/memento/zim/etc?

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

#170

Post by bartread »

ethanwillis wrote: post #58
bartread wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google shouldn't be the center of the Web. I agree, but are you suggesting it's going to be better if WayBackMachine is?

That's a strawman because I never said they should be. There's room for better alternatives. We as a community need to think bigger rather than resigning ourselves to our fate.

It's not a strawman because (a) I agreed with you, (b) context, and (c) I asked a question based on what you seemed to be implying in that context: a question to which you still haven't provided an answer.

Let me put it another way: what specifically are you suggesting as an alternative?

Post reply on HN