This is both good and scary idea: for the good part, I'm frustrated enough that some unscrupulous websites (even some news outlets) secretly alter their contents without mentioning the change. I want a mechanism that holds the publisher responsible. At the same time, this is scary because we're basically using one private organization a single arbitrator. (I know it's a nonprofit, but they're probably not as public as a government entity.) Maybe it's good for the time being, but we should be aware that this is a solution that's far from perfect.
Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
61–70 of 262 posts
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#62I'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…
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.
wikipedia just does "$some-link-here (Archived $archived-version-link)", and it works pretty well, imo.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#63This is a bad idea... In the worst case one might write a cool article and get two hits, one noticing it exists, and the other from the archive service. After that it might go viral, but the author may have given up by then. The author is losing out on inbound links so google thinks their site is irrelevant and gives it a bad pagerank. All you need to do is get archive.org to take a copy at the time, you can always a…
archive.org sends the HTTP header
Link: ; rel="original"
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#64This behaviour should be reported to the WayBackMachine as abuse.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be nice if there's an automatic way to have a link revert to the Wayback Machine once the original link stops working. I can't think of an easy way to do that, though.
wikipedia just does "$some-link-here (Archived $archived-version-link)", and it works pretty well, imo.
For me that is the real solution when you know that the archived-link is the one consulted by the author/whatever and the normal one being the content (or its evolution).
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#66This is both good and scary idea: for the good part, I'm frustrated enough that some unscrupulous websites (even some news outlets) secretly alter their contents without mentioning the change. I want a mechanism that holds the publisher responsible. At the same time, this is scary because we're basically using one private organization a single arbitrator. (I know it's a nonprofit, but they're probably not as public a…
Public "or" a government entity.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#67The proper way is for a site to expose a canonical link to an article via a meta-link (rel=canonical) if necessary, and then have a browser plugin to automatically try archive.org with an URL generated from the canonical one if it is down.
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#68I'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…
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.
Their browser extention does exactly that...
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#69It would be good to create a distributed, consensus version (to help stop edits) of the content rather than have a single point of failure...
Re: Why I link to Wayback Machine instead of original web content
#70I'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…
yeah at some point, way back machine need to be on webttorrent, ipfs type of thing where it is immutable.