It helps a lot in some cases but archive.org archives the data illegally. That’s because they archive the data publicly without any approval. There are many who have no idea that this service exists. But Archive.org also helps abusers to use content created by another author. So this second gives us a reply: This method of using content without the author’s approval is totally illegal!
However legal or ilegal, Archive.org helps publishers to restore their website data even after a few years.
It may seem a little strange. Maybe someone can say “Who is this publisher who can not write a good article in English. How can this author from a minimal trafic ranking website to criticize a big project such as Archive.org”
I am one of those who loves the truth. My website can be attacked. Maybe I will not be able to protect it from the abusers. Then me or my website can be penalized even though in this case I am a victim. But I’m not worried about these problems because I love the truth.
- A wonderful opportunity to recover website data even after a few years.
- A golden opportunity for those who buy expired domains (these do not get tired of content because content is available to an WayBack Machine).
- A platform that violates privacy.
A wonderful opportunity to recover website data.
During the work the mistakes happen, the data can be damaged or completely deleted. This makes WayBackMachine a good opportunity to recover website data. But this also depends on the date when the website was archived.
A golden opportunity for those who buy expired domain, or more precisely domain, content abusers.
I’ve had a domain that has expired because of my inability to renew it. I’ve saved a backup of that expired website to use in a new domain.
But after some time someone else has reactivated that domain. I was surprised when I saw my content on the website that I had no control. And … oh god … duplicate content. It is logical that Google search estimated that duplicate content was caused by my new site, even though that content I created was unusual. An abuser with the help of a WaybackMachine has managed to run very high on search engines with content I’ve created, while my new site is ranked at the end of the results, or nowhere.
A platform that violates privacy.
When I created my first website, as a beginner I did not have the idea that there is one or more websites that store everything from my website.
I did not use “Domain privacy protection” because I wanted to save money, and because it was a experimental project.
I created postings, after some time I was inferior to the fact that I had written badly and unprofessionally.
After that I deleted or edited those posts. I spent a lot of time fleeing from Search Engines. But those posts were being archived in the famous WaybackMachine. Without my knowledge, without my request, without my approval.
Now I have long been aware of the existence of these “content guards”. Recently a few days after I assured that there is a code in robots.txt and .htaccess, a code that prohibits archiving, I made a request through email that the archive taken from my website should be deleted and never archived.
The surprise response came to me just after a few days:
“The Internet Archive can exclude websites from the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org), but we first respectfully request that you help us verify that you are the site owner or content author…”
I publicly want to ask them:
- Have you asked me if I am the owner of the site when you started archiving my site?
- Why, to stop archiving verification is required, while nothing is needed to start archiving?
- On this website, under each post there is a “Contact us: email@example.com”. In my request to you i have used the same email, do you trust that the one who uses this email is the site owner?
- If Internet Archive is a non-profit org, why the archive should be public, would it be better to have only one site owner access? Could it happen that someone who buys an expired domain sell it together with content.
- And finally, I will send the link of this post to you, if you read it, would you believe it was posted by the site owner?