• NumbersCanBeFun@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 years ago

      They have a browser extension that archives any page you visit automatically. It’s the laziest way to help contribute and I love it.

      • binom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        does this actually help the internet archive in any way? as in are your local ressources used or ad revenue generated? i fail to see how telling them to archive everything you visit is of any help to them. other than you being basically a crawler, i guess

        • NumbersCanBeFun@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I think your missing the point. As you browse throughout your lifetime you will eventually come across a site that went down that you used to frequent. If you are contributing in this manner the content you viewed is guaranteed to be archived and you will know where to start looking since you already had this set up. It just also adds the extra benefit for everyone else who wants to look.

          • binom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            i still think this kind of shotgun approach is not ideal, and the extension seems more like a service to me than a way to help the ia. so “help contribute” is not the wording i would chose. but i very well might be missing the point. i do love the internet archive and their fight for information freedom, don’t get me wrong. this was more of a nitpick.

  • GeekFTW@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 years ago

    The Internet is not forever after all

    Lmao never was. Shit you don’t want on the Internet will never leave. Shit you do want on the Internet fucking disappears all the goddamned time.

  • slipperydippery@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It looks like they misunderstand how to improve their SEO ranking

    In fact, on Tuesday, Google’s SearchLiaison X account tweeted, “Are you deleting content from your site because you somehow believe Google doesn’t like “old” content? That’s not a thing! Our guidance doesn’t encourage this. Older content can still be helpful, too. Learn more about creating helpful content.”

    • SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 years ago

      They really don’t. They’re going to hurt their domain authority and back links.

      It’s more valuable to make an update to past pages because Google sees it as useful content that is being maintained.

      You’re supposed to make tweaks once a year so it’s not stale, not nuke yourself.

  • 6xpipe_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 years ago

    However, before deleting an article, CNET reportedly maintains a local copy, sends the story to The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, and notifies any currently employed authors that might be affected at least 10 days in advance.

    People are freaking out so bad about this story. They’re doing the right thing and archiving it before deletion. Settle down.

    How many CNET articles from 2004 are you reading that you’re getting this angry about it?

  • FriendlyBeagleDog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It’s fairly silly that this course of action is the consequence of a desire to manipulate search engine results, but at least they’re archiving the articles before taking them down.

    To address the headline, though, I don’t think that anybody reputable ever seriously claimed that the internet was forever in a literal sense - we’ve been dealing with ephemerality and issues like link rot from the beginning.

    It was only ever commonplace to say the internet was forever in the sense that fully retracting anything once posted could range from difficult to impossible after it’d been shared a few times.

    Only in the modern era dominated by corporations offering a platform in perpetuity have we been afforded even the illusion of dependable permanence, and honestly I’m much more comfortable with the notion of less widely distributed content being able to entropy out of existence than a permanent record for everything ever made public.