|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Is it me or is the middle section really more of a how-to guide than an encyclopaedia article? Thryduulf 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not you. I've been trimming it over the years, but it has been resurrected. I trimmed it more recently. - DavidWBrooks 13:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the link to Zangelding in "See also" should be removed since the article it points to is under consideration to be deleted and the topic is intended to obvuscate, not inform. Fmccown 12:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks
Can someone please explain why this article has been moved to Wikibooks? What would make this a proper "encyclopedic article"? Fmccown 16:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it's because the "combatting" sections were how-to information, which is frowned upon by many wikipedians. The cleanup method is uncertain though, see Village pump. I'll just remove that section, and then remove the tag. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have added back the sections that you deleted because I thought they contained very useful and pertinent information. But I reworded it so it sounded less "how-to". Fmccown 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice of import
A copy of this article was moved to wikibooks using the Import tool (with all revisions). If this article was marked for copy to wikibooks or as containing how-to sections, it can now be safely rewritten.
If contributors are interested in expanding on the practical information that was in this article, please do so on the wikibooks side. For pointers on writing wikibooks, see Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would take away from the article if we failed to mention the work being done to combat link rot (the practical stuff). Hopefully the way I've re-written it is more acceptable to those who dislike how-to's. Fmccown 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This page should contain a link to Internet Archive.
Laurusnobilis 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added a section on web archiving which includes a link to the Internet Archive. Fmccown 14:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be very interesting to note. Is there an authoritative place where this information is listed? Fmccown 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. On the link above, it is:
- Number of (300 + 301 + 303 + 307 + 400 + 401 + 402 + 403 + 404 + 406 + 410 + 423 + 425 + 500 + 501 + 502 + 503 + DNS broken) error links / total number of links on Wikipedia
- This works out to about ( 259051 / 2836608 ), or 10.05%. This number is probably a bit low, as it considers 302 (temporary redirect) links to be working, when a good deal of them don't, because they redirect back to root pages or link farms. --Marumari 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't tell if the article writers are trying to be ironic, but isn't the first external link in references suffering from link rot? 220.127.116.11 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I doubt the original article writers were trying to be ironic. The issue has become moot, because the first external link in references no longer suffers from link rot! --FeralOink (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The first in the external section now works; however, it's even worse that the academic article listed first in "Further reading" is unavailable..
Moved From Article
(Is a soft 404 compliant with web specifications, i.e. the HTTP spec?) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
|Text from Dead link was copied or moved into Link rot with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Dead link.|
TOC - why on the right?
This section is listed as citation needed... "Some news sites contribute to the link rot problem by keeping only recent news articles online where they are freely accessible at their original URLs, then removing them or moving them to a paid subscription area. This causes a heavy loss of supporting links in sites discussing newsworthy events and using news sites as references."
I'm not sure of a good citation example, however, an excellent example of this is the Associated Press releases on Yahoo News. They typically disappear after a certain amount of time, probably due to licensing restrictions of using the AP articles. This is the most visible example of this that I know of.
"The best one"
In the section Combatting, the phrase "Typing deadurl.com/ left of a broken link in the browser's address bar and pressing enter loads a ranked list of alternate urls, or (depending on user preference) immediately forwards to the best one." doesn't seem to have anything quantifiable verifying it. For now, I'm saying citation needed. Capcom1116 (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Link Rot and the US Supreme Court
A number of interesting items linked at
The simplest and most common reason is that the website it links to doesn't exist anymore.
The most common result of a dead link is a 404 error
That doesn't make sense, if the most common reason is that the website doesn't exist, you'd get a NXDOMAIN.. Unless it's reregistered, in which case you *could* get a 404, either way, it feels like those two lines are contradicting each other. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite. Imagine, for instance, that there once have been a John’s site at http://example.com/~jrh/. Now, there’s no such site (even though the domain name still exists, and there still is a Web server behind it), so that attempts to use the URI above result in a 404 error.
- Whether it’s more common for the site to go away with its domain name or without is another question.