Maybe we should tell each other what sites we have archived on ours boxes ? I just started on http://ficlets.com/ . Joseph 12/01/09 5:20pm
i see that you noticed this, but each site page has a place for you to put your sig if you are working on it :) --Ross 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Some logo/banner ideas I came up with when I had a bit of spare time. I'd appreciate it if people let me know what they think. --Josef K.
- NICE --Ross 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added as our corner logo. --Jscott 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't edit this page. The "C" in "GeoCities" needs to be capitalized. --Jimhabegger 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to have been fixed
- But coincidentally the same text mentioning GeoCities is a link to "Internet Atrocity! GeoCities' Demise Erases Web History" https://time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1936645,00.html And the URL of this article seems to have moved to http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1936645,00.html
- So that needs fixing by someone who can edit Main Page
- ....unless we're enjoying the irony of this link being broken :-)
- -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
What and where
Several things should be made clear on the main page for the readers of this site:
- a. Price: What will be done with the archived files? Will they be available for free to the public, or will there be a fee for it?
- b. UX: What is the user interface for retrieving the information?
- c. Availability: Is the info available now, or will it be so in the future?
I reached here when googling (or yahooing) for 'Archive Geocities'. I believe most other will do so too.
My pages were geocities.com/pashute1.
- ynventor (about my early inventions 10 years ago),
- beair (about an open school system in Israel)
- PRT webzine (all about alternative transportation) Pashute 14:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, when you view the front page in a browser window that's not super-wide (1120px or more), the "History is our Future" box looks really awkward. The text gets smushed into a tiny, really, long column next to the image. An admin should really change the layout to one column, with the image above the text. --Qwerty0 12:55, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
- Now better? Emijrp 07:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
Updating "Ended Projects" Section
The "Ended Projects" section of the main page (bottom right) has several sub-bullets intended to act as quick links to archives. As of now, they are stubs. The ArchiveTeam Warrior page has links for archives to most of them. They are:
- MobileMe - Apple's file storage and sharing service, currently hosting over 200 terabytes of data, shut down on June 30, 2012.
- Tabblo - A site where users told stories with pictures. Closed May 30, 2012.
- FanFiction.Net - Around 7 million fan-fiction stories hosted on what may be the largest site of its kind in the world. They're not shutting down but Archiveteam has a copy "just in case".
- No official collection at archive.org yet. Raw WARCs available at this search query on archive.org.
- Geocities - We archived most of geocities mother fuckers!
- FortuneCity - It may be gone but we've still got it
As well, the FortuneCity bullet is red-linked atm, since the actual page at FortuneCity that documented the archiving efforts has no space in its title.
I really think that the main page should have a constantly up to date "[how to] help us!" section in the most prominent place possible. Probably, right above or below the "Archive time" logo, a well visible box should atttract people to ArchiveTeam Warrior instructions for joining the constant efforts. Currently, unless one follows very closely the highly noisy IRC and Twitter chats, it's very hard to keep track of ongoing projects; the mailing list is not used at all. Our best chances are probably in building a big base of people who constantly run warrior instances with no need to worry about them. --Nemo 07:49, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
- I have a feeling that it may be the best to have the banner above the two main column boxes. I've started a page 'fork' over on User:GLaDOS/adventuretime. --GLaDOS 07:57, 12 June 2013 (EDT)
Case maintains this list of http://indiewebcamp.com/site-deaths (and prospective site deaths). A useful list to check periodically.
Quotes on main page
Maybe the quotes section could have monthly updates? Topics for the quotes could be about web history, link rot, preservation, service shutdown, etc. An example:
- "The loss of Twitpic will scoop out and destroy a massive, massive amount of twitter history. Even @librarycongress doesn't have this."
ArchiveTeam Twitter Feed
Olicool10 13:06, 7 February 2015 (EST)
Suggestions for ArchiveTeam Wiki
Moderated guest edits
On the German Wikipedia, there is something called “Sighting”. It means that users with the role “Active Sighter” or higher (e.g. “sysop”) can unlock (approve) edits by these new users and IP users before they become officialyl visible.
I believe that guests (acountless IP editors) could make constructive edits to pages such as List_of_lost_online_videos and I believe that the number of users with good faith outweighs disruptive users such as User:Megalanya0 (this is an extreme example) by far.
This feature from the English Wikipedia could be useful for ArchiveTeam Wiki, as an immediate way of showing appreciation to a user's edit.
I have no problem with Wikitext source code editing, and wikitext is easy to understand + more versatile, but new and inexperienced users might have trouble editing, in particular, the source code of big tables such as this one.
Editing tables is really much, much more comfortable with Visual Editor. One can also easily move entire columns at once. At the moment, there is a workaround new users could use: Temporarily copying the table source code to a sandbox page on Wikipedia, visual-edit it there and bring it back here.
But please keep source code editor as default editor, or user-selectible. It is easy to open the visual instead of source code editor accidentially on Wikipedia. --ATrescue (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Mobile website option
I know that ArchiveTeam is mostly edited by Linux desktop PC (including laptops) power users, but when editing from a mobile phone on the go, a mobile version of the website with mobile editing functionality could certainly come in handy (pun intended).
The mobile version of Wikipedia tries to be more convenient for newbie users by greeting and congratulating messages for various accomplishments on the site (e.g. registering, creating new article), it has a “Related articles” section, a “Nearby” feature in the menu box (also accessible via desktop page via URL); smiling icons and has a “tagline” feature (subheader of page title) and a more newbie-friendly talk page browser. Of course, the mobile website is, like any mobile website usually is, more minimal and less functional, but ArchiveTeam consists of maximalists and experienced people for whom it does not make a difference.
But for editing on the go, the mobile page is more suitable and comfortable than the desktop page, so I suggest ArchiveTeam to add a mobile website option.
On Wikipedia, one can switch between mobile and desktop version at the bottom of the site.
I prefer the desktop page of course, but the mobile page user interface is better suited for mobile browsing and editing, despite less functional.
- We use the wiki for documentation, not communication. Many people probably wouldn't see such a ping for weeks or months. IRC's better suited for this. JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
More advanced page protection levels
I suggest allowing to be able to edit usual pages such as List of lost online videos/list through Similar to . From Special:Contributions/Anonymous, there had been some non-constructive edits, but also ones. Maybe we should .
is more constructive than , because the former allows constructive edits by new users to pass through while one can filter out the counter-productive, megalanyic ones. And there are more than MegaLanyas out there.
For higher-traffic pages such as the Main Page, or to prevent if a page becomes controversial, I suggest an and a as an alternative to , in order to allow more reputable users (who are usually good-faithed) to make improvements to a page.
could also be viable for some sensitive pages as well. It's difference from is that it also requires edits by to be verified first.