4 ms·
Am I the only one to find it a little sad that "oh wow, ${some.website} is still online!" is such a common sentiment? It seems to me that the default should hav
by eponeponepon 10y ago
Am I the only one to find it a little sad that "oh wow, ${some.website} is still online!" is such a common sentiment? It seems to me that the default should have been for content to persist, and the surprising events should have been content that disappears.
I mean, 1997 is not even twenty years. Nobody expresses surprise that, say, Fight Club is still available to watch - but on the web we seem to expect near-total transience over tiny, tiny timescales.
- sametmax 10y agoIt's because a website requires an active will to be maintained online, while a movie, while released, just sit here on its medium.
- halotrope 10y agoIncredibly the more features and bloat one adds to the pages the less likely it is to stay functional/not be hacked etc. The first iterations of the Web where nearly perfect for information retrieval / linking of actual information. We spent the last 20 years adding videos and adding tons of crap that make the whole experience worse and are quite detrimental to the signal to noise ratio on most websites.
- Tempest1981 10y agoIt's all an effort to stimulate the reader's brain, to keep them engaged. First text, then images, now video. Next VR? Just like TV shows that use frequent animated overlays, and ever-changing camera angles. If things stop moving, we reach for our smartphones.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoAnd the effort is made to make people pay attention to crap. Just like TV shows, if website is not crap and has actually engaging content, users won't reach for smartphones.
- ant6n 10y agoI wonder what would be the best way to 'fix' that.
- resoluteteeth 10y agoIPFS https://ipfs.io/#why https://ipfs.io/#why
- booleandilemma 10y agoThis is one reason why the "programming is gardening, not engineering" metaphor is apt. http://www.artima.com/intv/gardenP.html http://www.artima.com/intv/gardenP.html
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- roywiggins 10y agoNot really true for old-enough movies. Old celluloid sits there and gets older and then bursts into flame.
- bluedino 10y ago>> Nobody expresses surprise that, say, Fight Club is still available to watch You would if it was on a streaming service. How many times have you watched something on Amazon/NetFlix and go back to watch it at a later date and it's unavailable?
- elihu 10y agoI agree it's a shame that static content is more ephemeral than it should be, but I also worry about dynamic content and how the whole experience of using the web isn't snapshot-able. For instance, I can't really go back and browse the front page of Reddit, or look at Google News or just search the Internet of ten years ago. In fifty years, it's going to be really hard to explain to people who weren't there what it was like to use the web in it's early days. We'll have lots of archived data from that time, but the experience can't be re-created.
- xixixao 10y agoThose are services. I can't really go back to the sweets shop arounds the corner of ten years ago.