6 ms·

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

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 adjust your link to point to that if the original is dead.

ethanwillis 6y ago
Google shouldn't be the center of the Web. They could also easily determine where the archive link is pointing to and not penalize. But I guess making sure we align with Google's incentives is more important than just using the Web.
- bartread 6y ago
  > Google shouldn't be the center of the Web. I agree, but are you suggesting it's going to be better if WayBackMachine is?
  - encom 6y ago
    Yes. At least Archive.org isn't an evil mega corporation destroying the internet. Yet.
    - rriepe 6y ago
      We'll see what their new owners do after the lawsuit.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    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.
    - bartread 6y ago
      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?
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        If I had to pick a solution from what's available right now technology wise I'd pick something that links based on content hashes. And then pulls the content from decentralized hosting. I don't think I like IPFS as an organization, but tech wise it's probably what I'd go with.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > But I guess making sure we align with Google's incentives is more important than just using the Web. It's not about Google's incentives. It's about directing the traffic where it should go. Google is just the means to do so. Build an alternative, I'm sure nobody wants Google to be the number one way of finding content, it's just that they are, so pretending they're not and doing something that will hurt your ability to have your content found isn't productive.
- rchaud 6y ago
  Every search engine uses the number of backlinks as one of the key factors in influencing search rank; it's a fundamental KPI when it comes to understanding whether a link is credible. What is true for Google in this regard is also true of Bing, DDG and Yandex.
johannes1234321 6y ago
One can also do it similar to Wikipedia references sections, which links to the original and the memento in the archive. (Once the bot notices it's gone) Additional benefit: Some edits are good (addendums, typo corrections etc.)
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
There's no reason that pagerank couldn't be adapted to take into account wayback machine urls, there is a link with a url pointing at https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://news.ycombinator.com/ google could easily register that as a link to both resources - one to web.archive, the other to the site. there is also no reason why that has to become a slippery slope, if anyone is going to ask "but where do you stop!!"
- dmitriid 6y ago
  After all, they did change their search to accommodate AMP. Changing it to take WebArchive into account is a) peanuts and b) is actually better for the web
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    There's a business idea in there somewhere. Some kind of CDN-edge-archive hybrid.
    - britmob 6y ago
      “CDN-Whether-You-Want-It-Or-Not”
      - quickthrower2 6y ago
        Foreverspin meets Cloudflare
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      I was thinking more there was a business motto in there somewhere - like "Don't be evil, be actively Good!" or something catchy like that.
acatton 6y ago
archive.org sends the HTTP header Link: <https://example.com>; rel="original" This can be used by search engines to adjust their ranking algorithms.
scruffyherder 6y ago
Even worse, when you have people using rss to wholesale copy your site and it’s updates and again that traffic and more importantly the engagement disappear. It’s very demotivating
marcus_holmes 6y ago
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 to remove said article, then surely that's my right? It's my article. Your right to not have a dead link doesn't supercede my right to withdraw a previous publication, surely?
- mitchdoogle 6y ago
  I certainly don't know about legal rights, but I think the ethical thing is to make sure that any writings published as freely accessible should remain so forever. What would people think if an author went into every library in the world to yank out one of their books they no longer want to be seen? I do think the author is wrong to immediately post links to archived versions of sources. At the least, he could link to both the original and archived.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. I know that journalism (as a discipline) considers this ethical. I kinda get that this is part of the newspaper industry as a public service - that withdrawing publication of something, or changing it without alerting the reader to the change, alters the historical record. But no-one has a problem with other creative industries withdrawing their publications. Film-makers are forever deciding that movies are no longer available, for purely commercial reasons. Why is writing different? Why is pulling your books from a library unethical but pulling your movie from distribution is OK? I think we either need to extend this to all creative activity, or reconsider it for writing.
    - Fargren 6y ago
      > But no-one has a problem with other creative industries withdrawing their publications I wouldn't say no one has a problem with this. It does happen, but it certainly doesn't make everyone happy. I for one would like for all released media to be available, or at least not actively removed from access.

ethanwillis 6y ago

Google shouldn't be the center of the Web. They could also easily determine where the archive link is pointing to and not penalize. But I guess making sure we align with Google's incentives is more important than just using the Web.

bartread 6y ago
> Google shouldn't be the center of the Web. I agree, but are you suggesting it's going to be better if WayBackMachine is?
- encom 6y ago
  Yes. At least Archive.org isn't an evil mega corporation destroying the internet. Yet.
  - rriepe 6y ago
    We'll see what their new owners do after the lawsuit.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  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.
  - bartread 6y ago
    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?
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      If I had to pick a solution from what's available right now technology wise I'd pick something that links based on content hashes. And then pulls the content from decentralized hosting. I don't think I like IPFS as an organization, but tech wise it's probably what I'd go with.
luckylion 6y ago
> But I guess making sure we align with Google's incentives is more important than just using the Web. It's not about Google's incentives. It's about directing the traffic where it should go. Google is just the means to do so. Build an alternative, I'm sure nobody wants Google to be the number one way of finding content, it's just that they are, so pretending they're not and doing something that will hurt your ability to have your content found isn't productive.
rchaud 6y ago
Every search engine uses the number of backlinks as one of the key factors in influencing search rank; it's a fundamental KPI when it comes to understanding whether a link is credible. What is true for Google in this regard is also true of Bing, DDG and Yandex.

johannes1234321 6y ago

One can also do it similar to Wikipedia references sections, which links to the original and the memento in the archive. (Once the bot notices it's gone) Additional benefit: Some edits are good (addendums, typo corrections etc.)

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

There's no reason that pagerank couldn't be adapted to take into account wayback machine urls, there is a link with a url pointing at https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://news.ycombinator.com/ google could easily register that as a link to both resources - one to web.archive, the other to the site. there is also no reason why that has to become a slippery slope, if anyone is going to ask "but where do you stop!!"

dmitriid 6y ago
After all, they did change their search to accommodate AMP. Changing it to take WebArchive into account is a) peanuts and b) is actually better for the web
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  There's a business idea in there somewhere. Some kind of CDN-edge-archive hybrid.
  - britmob 6y ago
    “CDN-Whether-You-Want-It-Or-Not”
    - quickthrower2 6y ago
      Foreverspin meets Cloudflare
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I was thinking more there was a business motto in there somewhere - like "Don't be evil, be actively Good!" or something catchy like that.

acatton 6y ago

archive.org sends the HTTP header Link: <https://example.com>; rel="original" This can be used by search engines to adjust their ranking algorithms.

scruffyherder 6y ago

Even worse, when you have people using rss to wholesale copy your site and it’s updates and again that traffic and more importantly the engagement disappear. It’s very demotivating

marcus_holmes 6y ago

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 to remove said article, then surely that's my right? It's my article. Your right to not have a dead link doesn't supercede my right to withdraw a previous publication, surely?

mitchdoogle 6y ago
I certainly don't know about legal rights, but I think the ethical thing is to make sure that any writings published as freely accessible should remain so forever. What would people think if an author went into every library in the world to yank out one of their books they no longer want to be seen? I do think the author is wrong to immediately post links to archived versions of sources. At the least, he could link to both the original and archived.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. I know that journalism (as a discipline) considers this ethical. I kinda get that this is part of the newspaper industry as a public service - that withdrawing publication of something, or changing it without alerting the reader to the change, alters the historical record. But no-one has a problem with other creative industries withdrawing their publications. Film-makers are forever deciding that movies are no longer available, for purely commercial reasons. Why is writing different? Why is pulling your books from a library unethical but pulling your movie from distribution is OK? I think we either need to extend this to all creative activity, or reconsider it for writing.
  - Fargren 6y ago
    > But no-one has a problem with other creative industries withdrawing their publications I wouldn't say no one has a problem with this. It does happen, but it certainly doesn't make everyone happy. I for one would like for all released media to be available, or at least not actively removed from access.