India official drains entire dam to retrieve phone
(www.bbc.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
One of the main reasons why I don´t archive links is because I like the source URL to be visible. Another reason is that I don´t find it such a big deal directly visiting the BBC, CNN, etc.
Mumsnet is that way kiddo ------>
It removes an attack surface. A redirect or archive site could be pointing anywhere.
And if it is a well known website seeing the URL you also get an idea of their editorial politics.
I like to know what site I am visiting, simple.
The source URL is clearly visible when you visit the archived site. Not sure what your issue is.
I want to see the URL before clicking, it helps me decide whether to click or not.
I realise this is not very popular opinion but this is the way I like it, when you post do it your way, I never complained about anybody archiving links. When I post I will do it my way.
Fair, I suppose. I guess I'd suggest just including both in the OP somehow. Two birds with one stone, covering both. But that's just me.
we archive it, because of how fast they pull down articles when we link to them if they break their narrative too bad.
I understand, but that has not been my experience with the BBC and other major big news sites, they don't usually pull articles down. Sure there are exceptions, I understand that too, but in my experience I have only seen that very seldom.
I'm not sure why he said "pull down articles". They make subtle changes to the article or headline more than straight pulling them down. Shadow edits, with no "this article has been updated" text. And no they don't usually do it. Most articles aren't that important. We're talking about protection for the exceptions. It's insurance.
not just removals, they also do edits, especially the bigger guys after we caught them doing the removing. The bigger concern these days are the stealth edits.
Don't be a faggot. Archive it anyway.