The new archive.org is over 8MB of HTML, quite impressive.
Snark aside, i'd like to read a post about what they changed and why. For example i see they almost entirely removed the previously prominent links to the forums. Why is that?
Snark aside, i'd like to read a post about what they changed and why. For example i see they almost entirely removed the previously prominent links to the forums. Why is that?
They should really change this. The page took more than 8s to load (with cached images).
What should be a quick reload of this page results in the transfer of that 8MB all over again, and takes very nearly as long as the original load. There is no universe in which this was wise.
Disclaimer: I'm on an unreliable hotel internet connection.
On the other hand, most of the world is on bad internet connections all the time.
Loading the images on mouseover (or whatever) would avoid having to wait for that massive slug of data.
I sure don't want to be loading that much data every time I go to the site, especially not on expensive mobile bandwidth, and especially since (as others noted) the images appear to be uncacheable.
So: nice job on the look, not so great on the bandwidth. :-)
No, that's a release candidate. A beta is considered feature complete, but potentially not, and almost definitely somewhat buggy and/or non-performant. It's also often not undergone any major form of usability testing, and will often need to be modified to incorporate the results of that.
So it's still an option.
Websites should not make changes to a user's settings based simply on a GET against an URL, because the user can click the URL from a random stranger not knowing it would have that effect -- as I did.
Aside from being a poor user experience, what has happened here is someone has deliberately coded a security vulnerability. Granted the impact here is basically trivial, but it's still a pretty classic no-no, and should have immediately set off flashing lights and klaxons in any security-conscious developer's mind.