4 ms·
I don’t read it like that. I think it’s ‘We can no longer crawl and archive the site since robots.txt changed to exclude us. Archives from before that exclusion
by delinka 9y ago
I don’t read it like that. I think it’s ‘We can no longer crawl and archive the site since robots.txt changed to exclude us. Archives from before that exclusion are still available (though not publicly.)’
Anything otherwise obviates the entire mission of the Wayback Machine.
- skywhopper 9y agoFighting a bunch of court cases to keep perfect purity in their principles would cost too much, when the number of these exclusions is quite small. Better to provide an easy out to a few whiny people like this author, than to spend all their money fighting every edge case on principle and in so doing bail on the entire mission of the organization.
- rhapsodic 9y ago>Fighting a bunch of court cases to keep perfect purity in their principles would cost too much, when the number of these exclusions is quite small. Better to provide an easy out to a few whiny people like this author, than to spend all their money fighting every edge case on principle and in so doing bail on the entire mission of the organization. She's a prominent left-wing television personality. Would you be so accommodating if it were, say, Tucker Carlson trying to scrub embarrassing information about himself from the wayback machine?
- danso 9y agoYes