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

          • binom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year 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
    51
    ·
    1 year 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
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      TBH this doesn’t make me certain this tactic won’t work, Google hardly seems to know how their SEO works. They sorta intentionally do this so they can blame anything suspicious on their black box, “AI”.

  • skankhunt42@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, we are penalized by the modern Internet for leaving all previously published content live on our site

    Even if this is true, which I doubt, why not edit your robots.txt to disallow them to index it and leave the content up?

  • 6xpipe_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year 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?

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Storage and bandwidth have never been cheaper. If you’re not doing some grand replacement of the CMS, it’s less effort NOT to remove old content.

      I love the argument they’re trying to make: if they prune enough content, everything looks fresh and new. So you’re effectively discarding one of the most valuable assets you have-- the fact you’ve been doing the same thing for 25 years and have some established credibility-- for a perception of “fast” that could be imitated by any number of content mills or AI services.

      If you’re looking at a review of a RTX 4090, it says a lot when the same site also scored the Radeon VII, Geforce 3 Ti, and S3 Savage.

  • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus. I long for the day we get rid of this cancerous companies that just ruin the internet with every day that passes.

    • poppy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year 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

      From the article, CNET is archiving it on Wayback themselves.