Timeline for Any policies around Dead links?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2020 at 22:58 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | And it's not just a matter of SE being stubborn and resisting the will of the people – there are good and sufficient reasons for the bumping (as developed in those links). | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 22:15 | comment | added | LSpice | (For anyone who doesn't follow all of @MartinSleziak's references, this is an extremely oft-mentioned request, and has been for a long time, so it seems fairly likely that SE has no intention of implementing it.) | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 17:38 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @StevenGubkin There are already some feature requests related to this: Minor edits, subject to review on this meta. (See also some of the questions linked there.) Allow non-bumping minor edits, but review them on /review on Meta Stack Exchange (and the linked questions). | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 15:46 | comment | added | Steven Gubkin | @GerryMyerson Is this "bumping" feature of the software something we could make a feature request around? I imagine being able to make a "bumpless" edit which requires moderator approval. | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 5:37 | vote | accept | JimN | ||
| Sep 17, 2020 at 11:28 | comment | added | LSpice | Dead links are the reason for my inveterate hostility to "here" and "this paper" links. If you say what your link is supposed to point to, then your link is still somewhat useful even if the target goes away. (Even better is, as @DavidRoberts says, to combine this strategy with links to URLs specifically intended to stay alive as long as possible. I only learned to do that recently, and I still sometimes forget.) | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 6:54 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Sep 17, 2020 at 6:17 | answer | added | YCor | timeline score: 17 | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 5:34 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | The first comment mentioned bumping too many posts, which was previously discussed here: Do we have an unofficial quota on how many old questions one should bump for minor edits in a single day? Some recommendations on the way to link to papers was discussed, for example, here: Edits with links to material under restricted access. | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 5:31 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 17, 2020 at 5:25 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I would guess that at least some of the posts linking to archive.org have been edited to restore dead links, especially if you look among recently active posts. Using SEDE you can find specific edits where such links were added. | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 3:58 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I have edited the question with a sample display of info and links one might want to include if editing to fix links | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 3:49 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @jeq better is not a link.springer.com url, but a doi url, in this case doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-9078-6_132 (found in the "about this paper" section of the page). And there is still the IMU free copy of volume 2 of the 1994 proceedings: mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICM/Proceedings/ICM1994.2/… | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 1:49 | comment | added | jeq | ... And then, once you know what the linked paper is, you can sometimes replace it with a current link: for example link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-0348-9078-6_132 (which in this instance is behind a paywall). | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 1:40 | comment | added | jeq | Sometimes dead links can be recovered via the Wayback Machine. For example, the Math Union pdf in your post can be found at web.archive.org/web/20170811094846/http://www.mathunion.org/ICM/…. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 22:37 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | One rule around editing old posts is, don't overdo it. Each edit bumps the old post to the front page, bumping some newer post off the page. Three or four such bumps a day is the maximum I'd recommend. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 20:47 | history | asked | JimN | CC BY-SA 4.0 |