Missed Archival Opportunities?

[Dick Justice]

I've been lurking for a while and noticed that sop seems to be to do the standard archive.is backup and a direct link which is good, or failing that a wayback machine link instead. Sub-optimal, but still not bad. What I've never seen is someone wget/curling the site src and posting it. Is there a reason for this? Sure javascript can fuck things up but there are still a lot of cases where this is a valid fallback for that which can't be archived otherwise, and certainly a lot better than simply linking-and-praying.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Ummm...what?

 

[CIA Nigger]

What I've never seen is someone wget/curling the site src and posting it. Is there a reason for this? Sure javascript can fuck things up but there are still a lot of cases where this is a valid fallback for that which can't be archived otherwise, and certainly a lot better than simply linking-and-praying.

It's because archive.fo is piss easy to use and pass around compared to typing in a Linux command and ending up with a bunch of source files that all have to be zipped up. Meanwhile with archive.fo you get a nice link you can use when making and posting to threads.

 

[Dick Justice]

It's because archive.fo is piss easy to use and pass around compared to typing in a Linux command and ending up with a bunch of source files that all have to be zipped up. Meanwhile with archive.fo you get a nice link you can use when making and posting to threads.

Mind, I mean in the rare cases where the site can't be archived this way. If I have the option I'm always going that route.

 

[skiddlez]

Mind, I mean in the rare cases where the site can't be archived this way. If I have the option I'm always going that route.

in this event you're better off screencapping and embedding it directly into your post as an image rather than throwing site files in some sort of archive container and attaching them at the end of the post for users to have to download, extract, and view manually. screencapping is easy, even if you want to cap the whole page.

there's nothing technically wrong with your methodology at all, it's just that there are methods that require less steps for both the viewers and the people archiving content.

 

[QU 734]

Ummm...what?

https://linux.die.net/man/1/wget

 

[Maggots on a Train v2]

I think the problem is that you would need your own hosting service somewhere to host a live complete webpage collection of files, and somebody could always just edit the main html to say whatever they want.

 

[repentance]

I think the problem is that you would need your own hosting service somewhere to host a live complete webpage collection of files, and somebody could always just edit the main html to say whatever they want.

One of the reasons for using independent archiving services is so we can prove that our screencaps are legitimate.