I notice that the URL field suggests replacing links with archive.org etc, and I’m wondering if anyone has context on that design choice or suggested best practice.

The most obvious use-case, I imagine, is to perhaps link to problematic sources without indirectly supporting them?

Although, I also wondered if instead was to be more resistant to link-rot, but in that case, I’d worry about depriving “good” sites of support. Not to mention increasing the fallout if one of those archival sites goes down, so I guess this most likely isn’t the motivation, but wanted to check.

  •  rknuu   ( @rknuu@beehaw.org ) English
    8•1 year ago

    There are a few other reasons I know of:

    1. Archive.org links tend to pass through the paywall on sites that have them, so it provides opportunity to view content without that hiccup.
    2. Digital sustainability is really hard. Many links have a short lifespan, or articles are “evergreen” and end up changing from when the post was made. This creates a snapshot to prevent both these issues.
    3. Prevents the “hug of death”, when an unsuspecting site goes from 1k visitors a day to 500k. Not all sites are resilient to that kind of traffic shaping.

    Agree that it does bypass the good sites, but some have concerns over these points.

    That said, you’re placing your faith in your archive site to stay up and continue to function.