3 ms·
My guess is that they saw a long tail of content that got infrequent page views and thought that the effort wasn't worth it to do a migration of all that conten
by Yhippa 4y ago
My guess is that they saw a long tail of content that got infrequent page views and thought that the effort wasn't worth it to do a migration of all that content. People will feel an immediate theoretical loss but that they never did really access old articles so it wasn't a big loss and they'll move on.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoWhat is also ridiculous is how links and search for merely half a year old articles were broken too.
- karaterobot 4y ago> People will feel an immediate theoretical loss but that they never did really access old articles so it wasn't a big loss and they'll move on. There's so much history that gets lost for that reason: it's ephemeral, and nobody misses it at the time. It's hard to get people to think about what historians 500 years from now will be frustrated by not knowing. There's no immediate profit in it, we don't view it as all that important right now, and it's slightly inconvenient, so it'll probably just be lost to history.