3 ms·

> Honestly, if I ever link anything that will be read after a long time, I only use archive.org/ links, and I cross my finger, that the snapshot will still exis

by jolmg 5y ago

> Honestly, if I ever link anything that will be read after a long time, I only use archive.org/ links, and I cross my finger, that the snapshot will still exist in X years. I don't understand this practice. It seems more proper to use the original URL and let readers themselves use archive.org when the link becomes dead. Using the nonprofit's archives when you don't need them seems abusive. On average it should be simpler for the original server to render the page than for the wayback machine to fetch a particular snapshot. What's worse is that I don't think you're the only one needlessly using their archive like this, and wonder if, as a collective, uses like this significantly increase their operational costs.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
The problem with direct linking is, that content is sometimes changed without any indication. Something happens, you link to cnn/fox/whatever, and discuss the news story or their comment or whatever, and two hours later, the whole article is rewritten, the headline is different and the subtone is different. This would be ok, if there was a "history" section at the beginning of the article, saying "this article was changed on date X and Y and Z, click here to see previous versions", but usually it's not. an example widely publicized last year: https://web.archive.org/web/20210525043631/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opinion/israel-palestine-zionism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210525043631/https://www.nytim... Then people get angry for newyork times using anti-semitic attacks for left-right politics, and soon after: https://web.archive.org/web/20210525173242/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opinion/israel-palestine-zionism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210525173242/https://www.nytim... Different headline all together, same url. Now if i said that ny times is using those attacs for politics, and linked the article directly, you (visiting the second version of the article) wouldn't find the headline "problematic", and you'd think i was just some far-whatever nutjob conspiracy theorist... by linking to the archive, you see the headline that I saw.

by jolmg 5y ago

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

The problem with direct linking is, that content is sometimes changed without any indication. Something happens, you link to cnn/fox/whatever, and discuss the news story or their comment or whatever, and two hours later, the whole article is rewritten, the headline is different and the subtone is different. This would be ok, if there was a "history" section at the beginning of the article, saying "this article was changed on date X and Y and Z, click here to see previous versions", but usually it's not. an example widely publicized last year: https://web.archive.org/web/20210525043631/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opinion/israel-palestine-zionism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210525043631/https://www.nytim... Then people get angry for newyork times using anti-semitic attacks for left-right politics, and soon after: https://web.archive.org/web/20210525173242/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opinion/israel-palestine-zionism.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210525173242/https://www.nytim... Different headline all together, same url. Now if i said that ny times is using those attacs for politics, and linked the article directly, you (visiting the second version of the article) wouldn't find the headline "problematic", and you'd think i was just some far-whatever nutjob conspiracy theorist... by linking to the archive, you see the headline that I saw.