This page is not a forum for general discussion about Archive.is. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Archive.is at the Reference desk. For the use of web archiving services on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Link rot; to discuss the use of Archive.is on Wikipedia for this purpose, use Wikipedia talk:Link rot. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article was nominated for deletion review on 1 June 2015. The result of the discussion was recreation allowed. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:
|
The article contains false information: "archive.today removes archived pages in response to DMCA takedown requests from copyright holders." As a webmaster, I've had my site scraped against my will and sent a properly formatted DMCA to both the site and its ISP. It is a scarping site, masking as an archiving service. 80.62.117.71 ( talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
— Ark25 ( talk) 19:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of features/bugs, not the article
|
---|
If you look at ro:Biserica de lemn din Hilișeu-Crișan, there is a dead link:
Archive.is knows this link: http://archive.is/http://www.ziarullumina.ro/articole;1418;1;3759;0;Schit-de-maici-cu-o-biserica-unicat.html Strangely, it has only a "newest shot" (6 Jul 2013 03:25) which is an error page and that makes me wonder if it ever had older "shots" and then maybe it deletes the older shots? That would be bad.. The link is there since 29 november 2010, so I guess it was archived before 6 Jul 2013 on Archive.is (Almost all external links of Wikipedia (all Wikipedias, not only English) were archived in May 2012 says the Archive.is owner here: Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is) It's a very very good idea to archive automatically all the external links of Wikipedia, but then it's very bad to delete them and to replace with newer shots, which will eventually end up in showing "dead link". It very much looks like Archive.is keeps only the newest shots when it archives pages automatically. — Ark25 ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Archive.is can archive pages in the Google search cache. Once the content is archived, archive.is attributes it to the original website URL and not to Google's cache URL. This feature is useful when a site goes offline, that fact is noticed within a few days, the page isn't already archived in the Internet Archive, WebCite or elsewhere, and the only remaining copy of the page appears to be in the Google search cache. - 81.157.199.46 ( talk) 20:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In the comments made in the AfD discussion I don't see a consensus for removing this citation. — rybec 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be getting mixed up regarding the Robot Exclusion Standard, and the fact that Archive.is does not honor the standard, and what this means. The purpose of my recent edits was to clarify that this standard is used by the main archives (like WayBack and WebCite) to avoid infringing on copyrights, whereas Archive.is does not honor this standard, so there is a large amount of material re-hosted on Archive.is that is in violation of copyright law, specifically, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Some other editors deleted the link I provided to the Robot Exclusion Standard (saying it is a "dead link", although I have no trouble accessing it), and then inserted the statement: "... however, the protocol is used against malware robots in general, which routinely scan the web for security vulnerabilities and email-address harvesters used by spammers. Archive.is does not obey the robot exclusion standard designed against spammers." I frankly don't understand these words. The Robot Exclusion Standard doesn't provide any protection against malware robots, nor against spammers. It is a voluntary standard that is used by responsible organizations to work together to avoid unintended interactions, among which are copyright violations (which of course are NOT discretionary).
So, I propose to trim the words about malware and spam, and just go back to the relevant and well-sourced statements about how archives use robot exclusion to avoid copyright infringement, and the well-sourced and undisputed fact that Archive.is does not honor this standard. I'll also add the requested citation for the DMCA. Weakestletter ( talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
robots.txt
would make a poor defence against claims of copyright infringement.
The Wikipedia article doesn't mention the word "copyright"--the protocol is not a way to give or withhold permission to republish.Is there a reliable source that says archive.is is "lobbying to be used as citations for Wikipedia articles"? I took out the sentence about Wikipedia because it seemed to belong on a Wikipedia project page, not in a regular article. — rybec 03:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
the filter which prevents adding links to the pages on the archive.is website also prevens adding links to the Archive.is article. The links such as [[Archive.is]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.64.30 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Information about the country blocking is self-evidently available on the web.
You can easily google for currently active proxies in the countries in question and then run something like "Chrome.exe --proxy-server=socks5://37.27.205.217:35101 http://archive.is"
The article needs to be updated, as there is a "report" button where it's possible to report archived content to be taken down for a wide variety of reasons. nyuszika7h ( talk) 09:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What's better here - "Not to be confused with Internet Archive." or some variant of "For the San Francisco-based nonprofit website at archive.org, see Internet Archive."? User:94.230.146.228 is concerned that by being specific we're implying that the two websites are connected, but I think it's more misleading to say "not to be confused with Internet Archive" because that can be easily read as "not to be confused with archiving on the internet in general" - a reader actually looking for archive.org (without knowing its URL) might not think to click that and assume that they're already at the right article. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with archive.org." sounds good. Any objections? -- McGeddon ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4 with the proposal "Remove archive.is from the Spam blacklist and permit adding new links (Oppose/Support)". Cunard ( talk) 06:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the section contain valuable information? Virtually every website is geo-banned somewhere. JustPaste.it blocked in almost the same set of countries, Facebook is banned in China, etc.
In case if this information is valuable, I would suggest creation of a table or List of geo-blocked websites. 59.11.121.66 ( talk) 03:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with PeterTheFourth actually, I was going to bring that up. It makes archive.is sound like some service which is only used by "authors and hacktivists", when it can be used by anyone, really. nyuszika7h ( talk) 11:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC open if we should use long or short URLs when linking to archive.is -- Green C 23:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
→
Given hindsight, blacklisting Archive.is and bot-spamming all Wikipedia articles that used to use it did a lot of damage to our portal that cannot be reversed easily. Here's just one of the countless examples of Wikipedia articles referenced to no longer active websites, which were archived by Archive.is and never archived by the Wayback Machine: en.wikipedia.org » DRB Class 52, General Government, Kriegslokomotive » snapshots from host old.pkp.pl including » http://archive.is/bWNJt → Please take a look at my attempts at trying to reverse the damage in just one Wikipedia article: the Holocaust train. Would be nice to see another bot designed specifically to undo the deletions prompted by the original bot. Poeticbent talk 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
archive.fo
seems to be one of its domains, and sometimes archive.is
redirects there. This is my original research of course, but food for references.
80.221.159.67 (
talk) 23:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Cloudflare told me it is hosted there after a year of complaining about this malicious scraper botnet site. Plimitarmed ( talk) 05:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Most of these links say Hostkey then Cloudflare, however Cloudflare also told me it's hosted there so I can be sure it's not moved from Hostkey. Plimitarmed ( talk) 07:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
It would be interesting if something like this /info/en/?search=Google_Data_Centers could be written about how the site runs. Plimitarmed ( talk) 19:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Who owns it? Who runs it? And who owns them? Millions of people use their service without even asking who and what they are. This article doesn't even begin to be Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.239.242.222 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: I maintain that reliability is a serious issue for archive sites, and added relevant information to the Article. Rhododendrites disagrees. Let's discuss. -- John Navas ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
On 2 December 2016 the site became unavailable with browsers displaying Loading spinners indefinitely. It resumed normal operation late in the day.For all I know, this could be localized to you and your internet connection specifically. But, let's assume for a moment that you've included a source with the claim and look at it from an encyclopaedic perspective. Wikipedia isn't a collection of all knowledge. Site crashes are generally discussed in some greater context. For example, many sites - including Wikipedia - went on blackout in response to SOPA and PIPA. Another example would be major DDOS attacks like October's Dyn cyberattack. So, what is the greater context here? again, for all I know this could be a localized effect, or, server maintenance. It's of no encyclopaedic value in either of these cases. Has it been attacked or is there something interesting about this event that would make it notable in some way? can you also provide a source to back the addition of this content? Note, a source on this won't necessarily guarantee it's encyclopaedic value, but, at least I'll have something to work off of. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Starting on Sept 6th 2021, a multi-day outage occurred. As of 07:20am UTC, archive.today is still down. Gabefair ( talk) 07:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Each of their shortened URLs have 5 characters (A-Z a-z 0-9) (4 characters until 2012)
62 possibilities per character.
How many pages has Archive.is saved so far? Already beyond 14776336? -- 84.147.46.123 ( talk) 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The article needs more informations, unless those seem to be very difficult to be found, e.g. about who is the owner of the website, and who manages it.
Search results are sponsored by Google or yandex.ru, like is done by any indipendent and non commercial company in thr web.
An address space formed by only 5 alphanumeric characters is enough for all the internet requests simply because many of the saved results are deleted, censored and made unavailable to the public. Some of them are "embededded" into one result wich is shown by the search box, and continues to link the other saved pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.200 ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
A strange omission from the article! I note somebody above in this talk page names a "Denis Petrov". Equinox ◑ 18:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like https doesn't work at the moment. Site is still available on http though. Don't know whether this is a permanent change? Evert ( talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=archive.today
Something not quite right there... Evert ( talk) 16:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the certificates for this site/these sites have been fixed, so I guess all is ok now Evert ( talk) 07:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm Archive.today has been blocked in New Zealand following the Christchurch mosque shootings? Muzilon ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A total ban of archive.is from Wikipedia would be simply foolish and a suicide for the Encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims to long-term digital preservation of ist contents, but Wikipedia doesn't claim itself as a primary source of informations, even if the honesty of its contributors, the quality of its policies, the number of reviewers for each page and any single edit, make it much more affordable and objective than many other renokwn and blasonate encyclopedias. But the points are that:
Such a type of content provider strongly needs one (or more) permanent archive(s). For example, the French Wikipedia uses a private archive (http://archive.wikiwix. com like in the w:fr:François Mitterrand#Notes et références): not alle references are archived and not all archived contents are publicly readable by anyone, e.g. for legal reasons. I think that this choice was adopted in order to avoid copyright infringements and have a private and independent external certification that a determinate source did exist and was linked to a Wikipedia oldid in the past. But any administrator can decide:
Such a system would be completely inappropriate for an Open Project, whose sources must be reliable and verifiable for anyone.
Due to copyright reasons, Internet Archive also has made many saved entries yet unavailable so that the copy is lost or can't be used as the archive-url parameter into the Wikipedia citation templates. In the Web we have the Internet Archive or Archive.is, basically, given that WebCite is only for particular kind of selected materials. So Archive.is has become an unavoidable choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.134 ( talk • contribs)
Following the introduction of a Google reCAPTCHA some months ago, since February 2020 archive.is has ended to support browsers like Waterfox which don't share users'data with the partners of Google. Indeed, archive.is may be accessed uniquely through Opera, Chrome, Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox. Maybe, this scenario will change in the upcoming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.65 ( talk) 21:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
For a some time archive.today and all its mirrors are unavailable (I tried opening directly in my browser and checked by services like "downforeveryoneorjustme.com" or "isitdownrightnow.com"). I can't find any recent info about closing the site or any kind of technical malfunction. The last tweet is from April 2nd (2020), unrelated to the situation. Does it mean that the website has been shut down? If yes, shouldn't the article describe Archive.today with past tense?
-- 37.30.20.131 ( talk) 00:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I suspect DNS resolver is the problem. The site is not actually down, but some DNS resolvers are not supported by archive.today so it appears down. Try some from the list at Public recursive name server -- Green C 04:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The article states that "[archive.today] retrieves one page at a time similar to WebCite, smaller than 50MB each" or that, in other words, it can archive pages up to 50MB large. However, it later goes on to say that "Individual users can only archive and/or retrieve approximately 10 to 20 megabytes of data per day.", which means it would be impossible to archive pages larger than 10-20MB. I believe the person who wrote that part may have meant to write 10 to 20 gigabytes, rather than 10 to 20 megabytes. In the first place, a 10 to 20 megabyte/day limit is pretty ridiculous. The only way I can see that not being a mistake would be if 50MB actually meant 50 megabits, which is equal to 6.25 megabytes. User:Poudink User talk:Poudink 16:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Thibaut120094: my understanding is there is a reason the IP added the nobots tag for FrescoBot. Let's discuss before reverting again. -- Green C 21:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way to confirm this? See [4] which is contra though not definitive. -- Green C 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Archive.today has been down for at least a week as of 06 September 2021. cagliost ( talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm @Cagliost's observation regarding a multi-day, seemingly global, outage of the service. Gabefair ( talk) 07:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Was down for me ever since like yesterday. This + webcitation both being down at the same time seems strange. Archive.org is still there, and I think archive.today and webcitation should both be up soon. Again, they are free websites, so I don't really mind downtime. Also this is probably why there is space for up to 7(?) web archives in the webarchive template. Rlink2 ( talk) 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Working for me, and nothing in the blog about an outage. Try a different DNS that doesn't go through CloudFlare eg. 1.1.1.1 .. archive.today outages are often due to certain DNS resolvers. -- Green C 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I could think about writing a section about the DNS thing, but it would need approval from GreenC first Rlink2 ( talk) 01:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know who runs it? cagliost ( talk) 14:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about some of that being appropriate for Wikipedia. First it could be the wrong person and we cause someone trouble. Second it violates a basic rule about Original Research. Third it's speculation. -- Green C 16:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
In the infobox, there is a citation linking to a page with ads. This is used to infer that Archive.today is a commercial website.
This seems like either original research or synthesis.
Also, I think I remember reading elsewhere that the ads are just to help cover operating costs. (Not commercial?)
Is there a reliable source that actually states that the site is commercial (or otherwise)?
--
50.89.193.43 (
talk) 10:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The text states that "Since at least May 2018 it has not been possible to reach the site when using Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS service". A query this morning (20 February 2022) suggests that both "archive.is" and "archive.today" resolve using "1.1.1.1". Can others verify the site works using the 1.1.1.1 DNS service? Pvanheus ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
22 June 2022: detected outage at 18:34 UTC archive pages return "Server Outage" error. Home page works. -- Green C 18:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Are other places facing the same problem? Thanks, Maqdisi ( talk) 12:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the pages seem to work anymore. Has the entire site died? (I did a quick Google but found no one else complaining recently.)
All down:
Netizen ( talk) 12:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Archive.is. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Archive.is at the Reference desk. For the use of web archiving services on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Link rot; to discuss the use of Archive.is on Wikipedia for this purpose, use Wikipedia talk:Link rot. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article was nominated for deletion review on 1 June 2015. The result of the discussion was recreation allowed. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:
|
The article contains false information: "archive.today removes archived pages in response to DMCA takedown requests from copyright holders." As a webmaster, I've had my site scraped against my will and sent a properly formatted DMCA to both the site and its ISP. It is a scarping site, masking as an archiving service. 80.62.117.71 ( talk) 13:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
— Ark25 ( talk) 19:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of features/bugs, not the article
|
---|
If you look at ro:Biserica de lemn din Hilișeu-Crișan, there is a dead link:
Archive.is knows this link: http://archive.is/http://www.ziarullumina.ro/articole;1418;1;3759;0;Schit-de-maici-cu-o-biserica-unicat.html Strangely, it has only a "newest shot" (6 Jul 2013 03:25) which is an error page and that makes me wonder if it ever had older "shots" and then maybe it deletes the older shots? That would be bad.. The link is there since 29 november 2010, so I guess it was archived before 6 Jul 2013 on Archive.is (Almost all external links of Wikipedia (all Wikipedias, not only English) were archived in May 2012 says the Archive.is owner here: Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is) It's a very very good idea to archive automatically all the external links of Wikipedia, but then it's very bad to delete them and to replace with newer shots, which will eventually end up in showing "dead link". It very much looks like Archive.is keeps only the newest shots when it archives pages automatically. — Ark25 ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Archive.is can archive pages in the Google search cache. Once the content is archived, archive.is attributes it to the original website URL and not to Google's cache URL. This feature is useful when a site goes offline, that fact is noticed within a few days, the page isn't already archived in the Internet Archive, WebCite or elsewhere, and the only remaining copy of the page appears to be in the Google search cache. - 81.157.199.46 ( talk) 20:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In the comments made in the AfD discussion I don't see a consensus for removing this citation. — rybec 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be getting mixed up regarding the Robot Exclusion Standard, and the fact that Archive.is does not honor the standard, and what this means. The purpose of my recent edits was to clarify that this standard is used by the main archives (like WayBack and WebCite) to avoid infringing on copyrights, whereas Archive.is does not honor this standard, so there is a large amount of material re-hosted on Archive.is that is in violation of copyright law, specifically, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Some other editors deleted the link I provided to the Robot Exclusion Standard (saying it is a "dead link", although I have no trouble accessing it), and then inserted the statement: "... however, the protocol is used against malware robots in general, which routinely scan the web for security vulnerabilities and email-address harvesters used by spammers. Archive.is does not obey the robot exclusion standard designed against spammers." I frankly don't understand these words. The Robot Exclusion Standard doesn't provide any protection against malware robots, nor against spammers. It is a voluntary standard that is used by responsible organizations to work together to avoid unintended interactions, among which are copyright violations (which of course are NOT discretionary).
So, I propose to trim the words about malware and spam, and just go back to the relevant and well-sourced statements about how archives use robot exclusion to avoid copyright infringement, and the well-sourced and undisputed fact that Archive.is does not honor this standard. I'll also add the requested citation for the DMCA. Weakestletter ( talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
robots.txt
would make a poor defence against claims of copyright infringement.
The Wikipedia article doesn't mention the word "copyright"--the protocol is not a way to give or withhold permission to republish.Is there a reliable source that says archive.is is "lobbying to be used as citations for Wikipedia articles"? I took out the sentence about Wikipedia because it seemed to belong on a Wikipedia project page, not in a regular article. — rybec 03:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.
the filter which prevents adding links to the pages on the archive.is website also prevens adding links to the Archive.is article. The links such as [[Archive.is]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.64.30 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Information about the country blocking is self-evidently available on the web.
You can easily google for currently active proxies in the countries in question and then run something like "Chrome.exe --proxy-server=socks5://37.27.205.217:35101 http://archive.is"
The article needs to be updated, as there is a "report" button where it's possible to report archived content to be taken down for a wide variety of reasons. nyuszika7h ( talk) 09:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
What's better here - "Not to be confused with Internet Archive." or some variant of "For the San Francisco-based nonprofit website at archive.org, see Internet Archive."? User:94.230.146.228 is concerned that by being specific we're implying that the two websites are connected, but I think it's more misleading to say "not to be confused with Internet Archive" because that can be easily read as "not to be confused with archiving on the internet in general" - a reader actually looking for archive.org (without knowing its URL) might not think to click that and assume that they're already at the right article. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with archive.org." sounds good. Any objections? -- McGeddon ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4 with the proposal "Remove archive.is from the Spam blacklist and permit adding new links (Oppose/Support)". Cunard ( talk) 06:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Does the section contain valuable information? Virtually every website is geo-banned somewhere. JustPaste.it blocked in almost the same set of countries, Facebook is banned in China, etc.
In case if this information is valuable, I would suggest creation of a table or List of geo-blocked websites. 59.11.121.66 ( talk) 03:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with PeterTheFourth actually, I was going to bring that up. It makes archive.is sound like some service which is only used by "authors and hacktivists", when it can be used by anyone, really. nyuszika7h ( talk) 11:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC open if we should use long or short URLs when linking to archive.is -- Green C 23:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
→
Given hindsight, blacklisting Archive.is and bot-spamming all Wikipedia articles that used to use it did a lot of damage to our portal that cannot be reversed easily. Here's just one of the countless examples of Wikipedia articles referenced to no longer active websites, which were archived by Archive.is and never archived by the Wayback Machine: en.wikipedia.org » DRB Class 52, General Government, Kriegslokomotive » snapshots from host old.pkp.pl including » http://archive.is/bWNJt → Please take a look at my attempts at trying to reverse the damage in just one Wikipedia article: the Holocaust train. Would be nice to see another bot designed specifically to undo the deletions prompted by the original bot. Poeticbent talk 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
archive.fo
seems to be one of its domains, and sometimes archive.is
redirects there. This is my original research of course, but food for references.
80.221.159.67 (
talk) 23:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Cloudflare told me it is hosted there after a year of complaining about this malicious scraper botnet site. Plimitarmed ( talk) 05:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Most of these links say Hostkey then Cloudflare, however Cloudflare also told me it's hosted there so I can be sure it's not moved from Hostkey. Plimitarmed ( talk) 07:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
References
It would be interesting if something like this /info/en/?search=Google_Data_Centers could be written about how the site runs. Plimitarmed ( talk) 19:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Who owns it? Who runs it? And who owns them? Millions of people use their service without even asking who and what they are. This article doesn't even begin to be Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.239.242.222 ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: I maintain that reliability is a serious issue for archive sites, and added relevant information to the Article. Rhododendrites disagrees. Let's discuss. -- John Navas ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
On 2 December 2016 the site became unavailable with browsers displaying Loading spinners indefinitely. It resumed normal operation late in the day.For all I know, this could be localized to you and your internet connection specifically. But, let's assume for a moment that you've included a source with the claim and look at it from an encyclopaedic perspective. Wikipedia isn't a collection of all knowledge. Site crashes are generally discussed in some greater context. For example, many sites - including Wikipedia - went on blackout in response to SOPA and PIPA. Another example would be major DDOS attacks like October's Dyn cyberattack. So, what is the greater context here? again, for all I know this could be a localized effect, or, server maintenance. It's of no encyclopaedic value in either of these cases. Has it been attacked or is there something interesting about this event that would make it notable in some way? can you also provide a source to back the addition of this content? Note, a source on this won't necessarily guarantee it's encyclopaedic value, but, at least I'll have something to work off of. Mr rnddude ( talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Starting on Sept 6th 2021, a multi-day outage occurred. As of 07:20am UTC, archive.today is still down. Gabefair ( talk) 07:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Each of their shortened URLs have 5 characters (A-Z a-z 0-9) (4 characters until 2012)
62 possibilities per character.
How many pages has Archive.is saved so far? Already beyond 14776336? -- 84.147.46.123 ( talk) 01:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The article needs more informations, unless those seem to be very difficult to be found, e.g. about who is the owner of the website, and who manages it.
Search results are sponsored by Google or yandex.ru, like is done by any indipendent and non commercial company in thr web.
An address space formed by only 5 alphanumeric characters is enough for all the internet requests simply because many of the saved results are deleted, censored and made unavailable to the public. Some of them are "embededded" into one result wich is shown by the search box, and continues to link the other saved pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.200 ( talk) 19:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
A strange omission from the article! I note somebody above in this talk page names a "Denis Petrov". Equinox ◑ 18:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like https doesn't work at the moment. Site is still available on http though. Don't know whether this is a permanent change? Evert ( talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=archive.today
Something not quite right there... Evert ( talk) 16:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the certificates for this site/these sites have been fixed, so I guess all is ok now Evert ( talk) 07:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm Archive.today has been blocked in New Zealand following the Christchurch mosque shootings? Muzilon ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
A total ban of archive.is from Wikipedia would be simply foolish and a suicide for the Encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims to long-term digital preservation of ist contents, but Wikipedia doesn't claim itself as a primary source of informations, even if the honesty of its contributors, the quality of its policies, the number of reviewers for each page and any single edit, make it much more affordable and objective than many other renokwn and blasonate encyclopedias. But the points are that:
Such a type of content provider strongly needs one (or more) permanent archive(s). For example, the French Wikipedia uses a private archive (http://archive.wikiwix. com like in the w:fr:François Mitterrand#Notes et références): not alle references are archived and not all archived contents are publicly readable by anyone, e.g. for legal reasons. I think that this choice was adopted in order to avoid copyright infringements and have a private and independent external certification that a determinate source did exist and was linked to a Wikipedia oldid in the past. But any administrator can decide:
Such a system would be completely inappropriate for an Open Project, whose sources must be reliable and verifiable for anyone.
Due to copyright reasons, Internet Archive also has made many saved entries yet unavailable so that the copy is lost or can't be used as the archive-url parameter into the Wikipedia citation templates. In the Web we have the Internet Archive or Archive.is, basically, given that WebCite is only for particular kind of selected materials. So Archive.is has become an unavoidable choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.134 ( talk • contribs)
Following the introduction of a Google reCAPTCHA some months ago, since February 2020 archive.is has ended to support browsers like Waterfox which don't share users'data with the partners of Google. Indeed, archive.is may be accessed uniquely through Opera, Chrome, Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox. Maybe, this scenario will change in the upcoming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.65 ( talk) 21:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
For a some time archive.today and all its mirrors are unavailable (I tried opening directly in my browser and checked by services like "downforeveryoneorjustme.com" or "isitdownrightnow.com"). I can't find any recent info about closing the site or any kind of technical malfunction. The last tweet is from April 2nd (2020), unrelated to the situation. Does it mean that the website has been shut down? If yes, shouldn't the article describe Archive.today with past tense?
-- 37.30.20.131 ( talk) 00:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I suspect DNS resolver is the problem. The site is not actually down, but some DNS resolvers are not supported by archive.today so it appears down. Try some from the list at Public recursive name server -- Green C 04:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The article states that "[archive.today] retrieves one page at a time similar to WebCite, smaller than 50MB each" or that, in other words, it can archive pages up to 50MB large. However, it later goes on to say that "Individual users can only archive and/or retrieve approximately 10 to 20 megabytes of data per day.", which means it would be impossible to archive pages larger than 10-20MB. I believe the person who wrote that part may have meant to write 10 to 20 gigabytes, rather than 10 to 20 megabytes. In the first place, a 10 to 20 megabyte/day limit is pretty ridiculous. The only way I can see that not being a mistake would be if 50MB actually meant 50 megabits, which is equal to 6.25 megabytes. User:Poudink User talk:Poudink 16:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Thibaut120094: my understanding is there is a reason the IP added the nobots tag for FrescoBot. Let's discuss before reverting again. -- Green C 21:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way to confirm this? See [4] which is contra though not definitive. -- Green C 14:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Archive.today has been down for at least a week as of 06 September 2021. cagliost ( talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm @Cagliost's observation regarding a multi-day, seemingly global, outage of the service. Gabefair ( talk) 07:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Was down for me ever since like yesterday. This + webcitation both being down at the same time seems strange. Archive.org is still there, and I think archive.today and webcitation should both be up soon. Again, they are free websites, so I don't really mind downtime. Also this is probably why there is space for up to 7(?) web archives in the webarchive template. Rlink2 ( talk) 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Working for me, and nothing in the blog about an outage. Try a different DNS that doesn't go through CloudFlare eg. 1.1.1.1 .. archive.today outages are often due to certain DNS resolvers. -- Green C 15:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I could think about writing a section about the DNS thing, but it would need approval from GreenC first Rlink2 ( talk) 01:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know who runs it? cagliost ( talk) 14:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about some of that being appropriate for Wikipedia. First it could be the wrong person and we cause someone trouble. Second it violates a basic rule about Original Research. Third it's speculation. -- Green C 16:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
In the infobox, there is a citation linking to a page with ads. This is used to infer that Archive.today is a commercial website.
This seems like either original research or synthesis.
Also, I think I remember reading elsewhere that the ads are just to help cover operating costs. (Not commercial?)
Is there a reliable source that actually states that the site is commercial (or otherwise)?
--
50.89.193.43 (
talk) 10:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The text states that "Since at least May 2018 it has not been possible to reach the site when using Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1 DNS service". A query this morning (20 February 2022) suggests that both "archive.is" and "archive.today" resolve using "1.1.1.1". Can others verify the site works using the 1.1.1.1 DNS service? Pvanheus ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
22 June 2022: detected outage at 18:34 UTC archive pages return "Server Outage" error. Home page works. -- Green C 18:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Are other places facing the same problem? Thanks, Maqdisi ( talk) 12:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
None of the pages seem to work anymore. Has the entire site died? (I did a quick Google but found no one else complaining recently.)
All down:
Netizen ( talk) 12:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)