Replies

I'm a complete non-techie, but I've wondered if there's a way to have people post an article with a link, and have only the link show for as long as it's working; then the first time the link retrieves some sort of error code, have the full text post kick in permanently. I don't know if it's feasible, since different sites produce different types of responses to expired links, making the programming for a recognition system difficult. Alternatively, the system could rely on freepers, with a standing instruction to click the "insert full text" button if and only if the link doesn't work. If something like this could be set up, I think few sites would have any objection to the permanent archiving -- most just want the hits for the few days the articles are accessible on their sites, to show to their advertisers. Few of the news sites are deriving any significant income from paid archive retrievals by individuals looking for a specific article. Just a thought to keep in mind if problems of this sort crop up again in the future.

I think if the source website is interested in getting clicks, it would be just as interested in capturing your attention with a working or dead link-- as long as they can serve you their custom 404 with their advertising and internal links to resources THEY offer. I believe the reigning philosophy is capturing the web browser.

If something like this could be set up, I think few sites would have any objection to the permanent archiving -- most just want the hits for the few days the articles are accessible on their sites, to show to their advertisers.

Few sites would probably object, but the L.A. Times and Washington Post also want to keep the ability to dump into the memory home any stories they've posted that turn out to be unflattering (i.e. are too quickly exposed as major lies or goofs).

BTW, one reason Jewish World Review's requests for link/excerpt-only posting have generally been respected is that their links generally (if not always) stay valid and the linked stories do not change. By contrast, some other "news" sources routinely try to cover their tracks when they get caught lying.