Open main menu
See Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine for information on using the Wayback Machine with Wikipedia.

Banned in RussiaEdit

Not sure if this is newsworthy enough for main paragraph or needs a new subject or nothing. Maybe sites banned and unbanned all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonPaul573e (talkcontribs) 08:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Still reading?Edit

Is it still reading pages? Seems not. (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2010 (

Did you see the part of the article that reads: "Snapshots become available 6 to 18 months after they are archived." ? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Where in Europe?Edit

Later in the article it talks about how copyright law in 'Europe' could cause certain effects but it doesn't mention where in Europe! The Continent? If so, where on the continent? Is it the UK? There is no single copyright law within the region... Just curios!

Presumably this refers to the European Union (not all the countries of the European Peninsula/so-called continent), which has a very important governing role. --Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wayback Machine is Amazingly SlowEdit

What surprises me time and time again is how incredibly slow the WayBackMachine is. Check Google for 'waybackmachine slow' and you'll see other people agree; even called "notoriously slow" by some folks.[1] I wonder if there's a reliable source somewhere so we could mention the service's speed in the article. -- (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Still collecting pages?Edit

I was able to see the page from October 22, 2009 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All of Wayback Machine's archived links are shut down!Edit

Why aren't all those archived links in the Wayback Machine working anymore?! Can't someone please fix the Wayback Machine?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain to those of us who are not familiar with the term, what are "archived links"? Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I took "archived links" to mean links to its old, archived pages, it's main function.
      As of June 30 it's still down. ERR: "The New Wayback Machine is having problems. Please try again later." Seeking help in forums etc, I could find no activity in recent months. I hope this historical treasure of history comes back, as I see evidence that Winston Smith's memory hole is gaining power —and coincidentally the historical treasure of Google's Usenet archive no longer seems cut in stone.
-- (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
UPDATE my above: I've since used it, it's seemingly working fine.
-- (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Doug Bashford

Yahoo! Search provides links to Waybackmachine?Edit

See: Talk:Yahoo!_Search#Waybackmachine Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Netbula v. Chordiant Software ? ...Jargon?Edit

That section makes no sense. The first paragraph, I assume accurate, is meaningless. Probable jargon and/or insider-know presumptions. Suggest repair or deletion.
-- (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Not reliable anymoreEdit

A matter of location of the IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability in retrieving archived materialEdit

It would probably be miraculous if the WM could archive everything on the internet, but as an experienced user I know only too well that pages and images are often unavailable not because of robots.txt or legal reasons, but simply because WM failed to retrieve them properly. There is absolutely no mention of this in the article and there should be. Lee M (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's only archive 10%~40% of whole pages specially if the site are above 500 pages , no need to mention sites had million of pages/link they almost store 10% max .--Salem F (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not wellEdit

Section Search engine links:

... began to provide links to other versions of pages archived on the Wayback Machine.

What does that even mean? That they use the Wayback Machine as a caching service? That it is possible to see not only the latest version of a page, but olders versions as well? Whatever it is, it ought to be described.

--Mortense (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

December 2014Edit

This week it rained in San Francisco and the power immediately blew out. Your tech utopia • The Register

Internet Archive: The big storm in SF has knocked out power to our main data center, so the site will be down for a while. We'll keep you posted here! 7:59 AM - 11 Dec 2014

unintelligible sentenceEdit

Under the heading "Origin, growth and storage", this rather odd sentence appears: "This became a threat of abuse the service for hosting malicious binaries." Can anyone make sense of this? It would seem to be missing a few words. Bricology (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  Done. I checked all three references the paragraph cites. I changed the sentence to, "This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries." The sources support the assertion that potentially malicious executables and PDFs are currently archived at the site.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Storage capacityEdit

At present this section is mainly a list of historical capacities. Can anyone add anything about the growth rate and future ability to store information? It would also be good to include information in the section on resilience i.e security of the data stored. LookingGlass (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wayback Machine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Stanford version of Wayback MachineEdit

I was just wondering if the Stanford version of the Wayback Machine is in any way related to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. And the Stanford Wayback Machine has a few pages, some dating to late 1991! So if anyone knows, make sure to reply.

Source(s): — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

An error on Storage capabilitiesEdit

At the start, we claim that in 2009 the site grew by 100 TB per month.

At the bottom, we claim that in 2014 the site grew by 20 TB per week, which is 80 TB per month - less than in 2009.

Is it possible? רן כהן (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Mass deletion of content"Edit

"Beginning in 2015, mass deletions of previously archived content caused a number of critics to question the sincerity of this goal."

The cited sources don't support that assertion. The first source is confused and inaccurate. The second source contains an update to the effect the problem was specific to that user and fixed. Both are essentially self-published blogs. -- GreenC 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Then please go ahead and remove it (and put this info into the edit summary). --Fixuture (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I was going to alert people to a seldom covered fact: the archive's own archive of itself claims to have 502 billion pages saved, not the current 278. However, I later saw that it's just a change in their counting definition. I hope the "bug" in the two sources you mention served as a wake-up call for certain people to get their act together. A site this important should be coded in such a way that bugs are likely to make it display more pages than desired. Connor Behan (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Major problem with robots.txtEdit

Hello, I just notice that since wayback machine won't archive pages AND also deletes the all previous archives of the webpage prior to the use of robots.txt, there is a flaw in it:

  • If a website went defunct, another site opens with the same URL later, and the second URL have robots.txt, can delete the previous defunct website. Even if the latest web owner does not technically own the dead website version of the URL.
  • If a site got hacked and robots.txt was applied, the same thing happened, all history is gone.

Check out a citation of an archive of SpySheriff, before, wayback machine does host the website, now since it now have robots.txt, the past versions archived are now deleted. I've assume hackers adjusted the website under that URL to include that file.

This is another threat to both wikipedia and wayback machine, as wayback machine does not have a "protection" to its archive. With things that can accidentally vanish by website replacement with robots.txt and hacked sites, it makes archiving virtually pointless in the very future.Joeleoj123 (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joeleoj123: Thank you for bringing this up. Do you have any relevant references? However, from what I can see, there are good reasons to exclude malware-distributing websites which seems to be the case for "SpySheriff". Also it seems that as of last month they are exploring ignoring robots.txt more broadly (see: Wayback Machine#Website exclusion policy). --Fixuture (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is still regularly occurring. As an example someone unrelated to the original site owners has taken over the expired domain name and redirected it to a casino site so that years of archived material that I need to access is no longer available. What this means is that anybody can delete anything they want from the wayback machine as long as the domain name is available for purchase. There needs to be some mention on this page that the archived material of sites that don't exist anymore is not safe and can disappear at any time. (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Try --GreenC 01:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, when blocked by robots.txt, the original HTML can still be accessed by using a non-JavaScript enbabled browser, or simply doing a wget or curl request to retrieve the HTML and view the html file locally. The robot blockage mechanism requires JavaScript to work. -- GreenC 13:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with only first page of pdf filesEdit

I know this is off topic but I don't know a better way to reach Wayback users.

I have an ongoing problem with only the first page of pdf's being supplied:

and many others. I am using Safari on iOS, latest versions. Any remedy? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I don't have this problem they both download complete multipage. Try a different browser or system. -- GreenC 14:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The same problem in Chrome and Dolphin. I was hoping some reader had dealt with this. deisenbe (talk)
Maybe clear cache? Download the file and open with a different PDF viewer not attached to the browser? -- GreenC 14:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Self-censorship BY (not of) the Wayback MachineEdit

I can't into Wikipedia, but I believe this case to be notable enough to be included. In August 2016, the Wayback Machine removed an archived page out of their own volition and pro-homosexual anti-Nazi bias. Link.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Observation: User agent passthrough.Edit

Hello. I have noticed that when using (initially in October 2013, see ), the Wayback Machine forwards the browser's user agent to the archived page.

This explains why archiving a website from a mobile web browser brings up the mobile version of the webpage.

Whether the Wayback Machine keeps a record of that user agent, is unknown. --Handroid7 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Wayback Machine" page.