Larks comments on Rationalist sites worth archiving? - Less Wrong

22 Post author: gwern 11 September 2011 03:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 14 September 2011 08:26:31PM 3 points [-]

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality?

Comment author: gwern 15 September 2011 02:33:43PM 2 points [-]

That would already be covered by my own reading of it, my browser history being the main source of URLs for archiver-bot.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 September 2011 07:24:06PM *  4 points [-]

I can't believe I haven't used archiver-bots for my browsing experience until now.

Comment author: gwern 17 September 2011 11:01:58PM *  1 point [-]

I think it's like backups - you don't appreciate the need until it's gone, and then it's too late. And to be fair, I don't think I would get much value out of an archive of my web browsing history from age 10-16, say.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 August 2013 05:42:12PM 2 points [-]

That would already be covered by my own reading of it, my browser history being the main source of URLs for archiver-bot.

You're making a permanent backup of everything you ever read on the internet? That's... that's... well I suppose data storage is cheap these days. It makes perfect sense. Reading your scripting instructions now.

Comment author: gwern 21 August 2013 06:52:29PM 1 point [-]

Not everything; I filter out things I am sure I won't want in the future and things I strongly expect to be available & which would take up a lot of space (Wikipedia in particular), and the bot is rate-limited by the IA/WebCite submissions. Increasingly more stuff is difficult to archive as sites load stuff via JS. But much of what I read, yes.