pucho812
Well-known member
Is there an easy way to save all the info from a website the is archived in the payback machine?
Saving websites from the wayback machine
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
ruffrecords
Well-known member
I used to have a program to do this on my old computer. Cannot rememeber the name but you just gave it a URL and set the depth of links you wanted it to follow and let it get on with it. I once used it to download the entire Sowter web site.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
scott2000
Well-known member
Appears Wayback has been kinda slacking in recent times. Quite a bit of things that used to be there aren't... Bummer...
Even the twinx stuff was accessible in the past.....
Even the twinx stuff was accessible in the past.....
ruffrecords
Well-known member
It's a big job and they have limited funds. I have donated to them a few times in the hope they will be able to continue the good work.
Cheers
ian
scott2000
Well-known member
Not sure how it works on their end as far as storage or decisions but , there is some kind of culling of things that used to be there and, more often than not, some of my newer searches for old stuff yields more dead ends. Almost like how when links go dead here . Wayback will get you to some places but there won't be anything accessible even if there appear to be working links . Guess I could try to read up on what their process is.
That smells like a Google problem. Not with archive.org.
Google has been putting more and more attention to the big commercial sites and less to the obscure, small blogger sites. I notice it when I know I've found the info before (like in years ago) and now it won't crop up, even when I go through every result listed. That's especially apparent when looking for vintage gear. If it's an existing brand, you'll have to wade through pages and pages of shops.
Google is obviously aware and they're working on it. Or so I've been told. It's the use of quotes for exact matches that no longer works reliably. Maybe other stuff too?
Other search engines give even less results. And you can't bookmark everything. At least, I can't. I've even tried a database for my bookmarks, but it always ends up unmanageable in one way or another.
AFAIK, archive.org never deletes stuff. Unless, of course, they are forced to do so by a judge. Which doesn't happen often.
Google has been putting more and more attention to the big commercial sites and less to the obscure, small blogger sites. I notice it when I know I've found the info before (like in years ago) and now it won't crop up, even when I go through every result listed. That's especially apparent when looking for vintage gear. If it's an existing brand, you'll have to wade through pages and pages of shops.
Google is obviously aware and they're working on it. Or so I've been told. It's the use of quotes for exact matches that no longer works reliably. Maybe other stuff too?
Other search engines give even less results. And you can't bookmark everything. At least, I can't. I've even tried a database for my bookmarks, but it always ends up unmanageable in one way or another.
AFAIK, archive.org never deletes stuff. Unless, of course, they are forced to do so by a judge. Which doesn't happen often.
Last edited:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
A former work colleague of mine is one of the founders of archive.org. I met some of the others at a presentation they did at the Xerox PARC forum right after the publicized what they were up to.
Shortly after the project was made public, some privacy concerns were raised and a new HTML tag was created so that web content could be marked "do not archive." Website owners can also contact archive and have older content removed (subject to proof of ownership). This is likely what you're seeing, IMO.
Shortly after the project was made public, some privacy concerns were raised and a new HTML tag was created so that web content could be marked "do not archive." Website owners can also contact archive and have older content removed (subject to proof of ownership). This is likely what you're seeing, IMO.
