8

The Wayback Machine seems to archive 404 pages as well as actual content. For example this page has a ton of 404 pages, and only the first few copies have actual content.

Is there any way to just show the non-404-pages in the calender view? And/or is there any way to (automatically) go to the latest non-404 copy in the archive?


There is a JSON API that seems to return the latest successfully (non-404) archived copy. For my example it looks like this. It could possibly be utilized by a bookmarklet or addon or something.

This script uses that API, but it is for webmasters: http://blog.archive.org/2013/10/24/web-archive-404-handler-for-webmasters/

2
  • 1
    I read on the wiki about a plug-in / add-on you can install on Firefox that will automatically detect a 404 error page in Wayback Machine. I am not entirely sure if this is the answer you were looking for, but if so, I will convert the comment to an answer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine
    – Rudolph
    Jul 28, 2014 at 9:28
  • I believe the description on Wikipedia is a bit unclear. What I think the addon does is detect 404-pages and redirect to the Wayback Machine. Anyways, it doesn't work with new versions of Firefox.
    – Hjulle
    Jul 28, 2014 at 12:26

1 Answer 1

0

I am currently using the following bookmarklet:

var f = function(jsn){window.location.href=jsn.archived_snapshots.closest.url;};var d = document,z=d.createElement('script'),b=d.body,l=d.location;z.setAttribute('src','https://archive.org/wayback/available?url='+encodeURIComponent(l.href)+'&callback=f');z.setAttribute('type', "application/javascript");b.appendChild(z);void(0);

or for sites where I haven't enabled javascript (in the NoScript addon) i use

javascript:(function(){window.location=window.location.toString().replace(/^/,"http://archive.org/wayback/available?url=");})()

followed by

javascript:(function(){a=JSON.parse(document.getElementsByTagName("pre")[0].innerHTML);window.location=a.archived_snapshots.closest.url;})()

This uses the API I mentioned above in the question. They are tested in Firefox 32.0 and probably contains multiple bugs.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.