Critiques pour Web Archives
Web Archives par Armin Sebastian
Avis de KirkH420
Noté 4 sur 5
par KirkH420, il y a 4 ansIt works to some extent, I like it's ability to open all the different web archives with one click.
There is a bit of an issue with some archives. For URLs: When I click on an URL to a Microsoft.com out-dated page, the Wayback Machine will take me to Microsoft's Error404 landing page.
This URL for example:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=45885
When passed to this add-on, the Wayback Machine converts it to this page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220328035922/https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/404Error.aspx
*It's landing on a Wayback Redirect page. After 5 seconds, the page gets redirected to another page.
We can see in the date is /2022-03-28-03:59:22/ and this is one of the newest snapshots created by the Archive. It's unfortunate, but The Wayback Machine continues to create snapshots of these 404 pages.
So someone might say, why don't you just use the Wayback Date-toolbar to turn back to an older date? The problem is, since your tool is finding the newest snapshots, it's returning these 404 pages. This changes the URL that we're searching for.
The API docs for the Wayback Machine says "timestamp is the timestamp to look up in Wayback. If not specified, the most recenty available capture in Wayback is returned."
The correct way to use the API is to create a link like this:
http://archive.org/wayback/available?url=https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=45885×tamp=20010101
*This will return a .json that contains a working "closest snapshot" URL and you can click on it.
It appears that this add-on is not using the API but is trying to manipulate URLs instead. This wont work well.
If you add the "×tamp=20010101" key, it will enable the "Return closest snapshot to the date 2001-01-01" rather than return the newest available snapshot. The downside is, you'll need to write something that will handle the .json API return data. (which shouldn't be very hard)
Doing it that way will ALWAYS return a website. Not those Error404 landing pages.
There is a bit of an issue with some archives. For URLs: When I click on an URL to a Microsoft.com out-dated page, the Wayback Machine will take me to Microsoft's Error404 landing page.
This URL for example:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=45885
When passed to this add-on, the Wayback Machine converts it to this page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220328035922/https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/404Error.aspx
*It's landing on a Wayback Redirect page. After 5 seconds, the page gets redirected to another page.
We can see in the date is /2022-03-28-03:59:22/ and this is one of the newest snapshots created by the Archive. It's unfortunate, but The Wayback Machine continues to create snapshots of these 404 pages.
So someone might say, why don't you just use the Wayback Date-toolbar to turn back to an older date? The problem is, since your tool is finding the newest snapshots, it's returning these 404 pages. This changes the URL that we're searching for.
The API docs for the Wayback Machine says "timestamp is the timestamp to look up in Wayback. If not specified, the most recenty available capture in Wayback is returned."
The correct way to use the API is to create a link like this:
http://archive.org/wayback/available?url=https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=45885×tamp=20010101
*This will return a .json that contains a working "closest snapshot" URL and you can click on it.
It appears that this add-on is not using the API but is trying to manipulate URLs instead. This wont work well.
If you add the "×tamp=20010101" key, it will enable the "Return closest snapshot to the date 2001-01-01" rather than return the newest available snapshot. The downside is, you'll need to write something that will handle the .json API return data. (which shouldn't be very hard)
Doing it that way will ALWAYS return a website. Not those Error404 landing pages.
339 notes
- Noté 1 sur 5par Urg, il y a 7 heuresThis addon includes "archive.is" (also known as "archive.today") as a default option.
Early this year, that site's owner/operator inserted malicious code into the site's captcha page, hijacking archive.is/archive.today visitors' internet connections to commit a DDOS attack on a small blog.
While debating whether to blacklist archive.is/archive.today for that alone, Wikipedia editors discovered that the site had also tampered with its own 'archived' web snapshots, altering them to insert the name of the targeted blog owner and frame them for things they never said. This was the nail in the coffin for the site's credibility as an archive.
Wikipedia blacklisted archive.is/archive.today, despite that doing so would require the replacement of almost 700,000 existing reference links.
It is not a trustworthy website.
This platform won't allow me to include a url. But source (with more details) is at arstechnica dot com slash "tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/".
Anyway, I am assuming the maker of this extension missed all this news, since said website is still included prominently in the extension.
I would have inquired first, before reviewing, but unfortunately github seems to detest one of my browser settings or extensions, so I can't currently use it.
In any case, if you choose to use this extension, be sure to disable the archive.is/archive.today option in its settings. - Noté 5 sur 5par hugh198, il y a 18 jours
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 16554821 de Firefox, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par hamza waterson, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19882925 de Firefox, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Armo, il y a 2 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 18285082 de Firefox, il y a 3 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par BaraShiro, il y a 3 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par ilovemikael, il y a 3 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Jatila, il y a 3 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par GnarlyCmdr, il y a 3 mois
- Noté 1 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19720321 de Firefox, il y a 4 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Dan, il y a 4 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 17451381 de Firefox, il y a 5 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Jalewood, il y a 5 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 15958710 de Firefox, il y a 5 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Java, il y a 6 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19611278 de Firefox, il y a 6 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 19604848 de Firefox, il y a 6 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par أبوعلي, il y a 7 mois
- Noté 4 sur 5par Ugarov, il y a 9 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Utilisateur ou utilisatrice 18960744 de Firefox, il y a 9 mois
- Noté 5 sur 5par Deo, il y a 10 mois