Debate: Should old websites with broken links be preserved or cleaned up?

I spent Saturday afternoon poking around the Wayback Machine and came across a local history site from 2005. It had great photos and stories about our town, but half the links led to dead pages or missing images. Some people argue we should keep these sites exactly as they are to preserve the original experience, even with the broken parts. Others say we should fix the links or at least note what's missing to make the content more useful. I personally lean toward leaving it broken but adding a note, because cleaning it up changes the feel of stumbling onto something abandoned. What do you all think is the right call here? Has anyone else dealt with this dilemma?

3 comments

3 Comments

barnes.jamie2mo ago

Man, that's the exact kind of dilemma that keeps me up at night. I totally get the appeal of leaving it broken with a note - that abandoned feel is part of the charm.

blair_davis502mo ago

You mentioned "that abandoned feel is part of the charm" and I think that's exactly right. There's something about a half-finished structure that tells a story you can only guess at. Maybe the person just ran out of money or time, or maybe something happened in their life that made them walk away. A new sign just wipes all that mystery out clean.

mary46214d ago

Wait, you spent a Saturday afternoon poking around old local history sites for fun? That's actually kind of awesome, I've never met anyone who does that. I get what you're saying about leaving the broken links, but I bet some of those photos are gone forever if nobody ever bothers to fix them. How do you even find old sites like that in the first place?