Dead Linkage »
While I understand that a lot of people don't bother updating old content on their sites, I generally make an effort to keep things at least reasonably-well oiled. Specifically in regards to usability. While I might occasionally remove something, I'll try to at least direct the person accessing that page to another that might have something useful.
And I'll also check out old links from time-to-time. Elise reminded me that it was time for that chore again. Since I hadn't used it before, I gave Alexa's Site Report a shot. Sure enough, it returned a list of dead links - but stopped at 50 (their limit).
Frankly, I was surprised that I had 50 dead links. Surprised mostly because I try not to link to news sources that go away relatively quickly (listening Yahoo?). A few of the links were from commenters, and they left links that either were never valid or are not valid now. So I cleaned 'em up.
What I really don't get is why large news sites do away with old information. Yahoo! I can actually understand, as they seem to have a consistent policy. But a site like CNN makes no sense. In one case, I have an article from 2003 that is still up on their site. In another, an article from 2005 is gone already. That completely blows my mind, and means that I'll have to stop linking to CNN. I hate cleaning out dead links.
Update: Perhaps some apologies are in order to CNN. Perhaps not. It seems that most of their content is available, but not all of it. One missing article was about Ashlee Simpson's lip sync fiasco on Saturday Night Live. Another was a bit about the Darth Tater doll. Still another was on the changes afoot with Cookie Monster. The other was a woman being a human shield in a foreign country (Iraq?). No rhyme or reason.
You might think that the "showbiz" category was to blame. But I have two links - one from 2003 and another from 2005 - in the showbiz category and they seem to work fine. So I have no idea.
Update: Creative Loafing had me going for a minute as well. But it turns out that they simply redid their archive structure. And didn't redirect the old links. It's not that hard, people. Heard of .htaccess?
Update: Even the networks get in on the act. Fox removed all traces (that I could find) of their Big, Fat, Obnoxious shows. Meanwhile, CBS left the content up - but they didn't redirect it to the new location. Come on people!
Update: The final class of violators seems to include some of the earlier ones, and these are those who decide not to change the structure of their site so much as the naming of the pages. Using something like .htaccess, the file name means very little. Yet people change their pages from asp to php, or from a file name to a "slug", and it breaks links across the internet.
Unlike some, I don't mind if the web changes. I think it should. If you notice a spider's web, it blows with the wind, and only a severe blow will break it. The interweb should be no different. It's easy enough for a spider to fix their web - simply run a new strand of silk. It's easy for any web site operator to to do the same by providing a way to get from the old location to the new one.
With linking becoming ever more important in the process of finding things, making your site function in a way that it doesn't break, but flows with the traffic, makes all sorts of sense. That's not to say that everything needs to resolve. But if you're like me, when you get a 404 page, you'll move on to find your content elsewhere instead of mucking about with a site that can't keep their links straight.
Speaking for myself, if your links stop resolving, I'll drop you from the site. I don't mean that as a threat or anything - please, like it would matter. But some people care about inbound links. And I'll be happy to link to you if you have what I need. If you decide to drop it, I'll drop it too, or I'll find the link I need elsewhere. I'm sure I'm not the only admin who feels that way.
Keep that in mind not only while surfing the web, but while you design your little corner of it.
Update: Another day brought me the chance to run another report from Alexa. This time, only 43 dead links, for a total of 93 on the site. Hopefully they should all be fixed (for now, anyway).
Update: Even Alexa isn't offering their service any longer. But the Google Webmaster Tools do. Check them out at Google Webmaster Central. Perhaps the best part is that if Google crawls your site already, the information is already there and you don't have to wait on the robot to visit in 50-link chunks.
