4 ms·
It may rob the original URL some traffic, That is an advantage. It reduces extraneous incentives to post links, which should be only about the information they
by nothrabannosir 10y ago
It may rob the original URL some traffic,
That is an advantage. It reduces extraneous incentives to post links, which should be only about the information they provide and not about page views. At wikipedia's scale, and sensitivity to information purity, that's relevant.
See also the rel="nofollow" decision from a few years back.
- eli 10y agoIt'd be a real shame if publishers decide to opt out of the archive to reclaim "lost" pageviews.
- iotscale 10y agoIt's probably good that it's possible to opt-out of being archived but what annoys me is a useful domain changing hands and the new owners deciding to wipe its history.
- thomasahle 10y agoSurely that's not possible?? And there is no way to find the old archive, even under an alias?
- lorenzhs 10y agoIt's not wiped (they don't delete anything) but if robots.txt forbids indexing then access to old archives is blocked. It can be quite aggravating, but at least the information is not lost---if robots.txt or archive.org's policy changes, it can be retrieved again.