Loadingā¦
5
Pro tip: I compared the old GeoCities page to its Web Archive snapshot, and the dead version was oddly better
Two weeks ago I pulled up a still-live GeoCities page for a 1998 fan shrine to a cereal mascot, then loaded the same page on the Wayback Machine from March 2001. The live one has working marquees and a guestbook that still takes entries, which sounds great, but half the images are broken and the hit counter froze at 14,302 sometime around 2004. The archived copy is a total mess too, yet every single graphic loads, the MIDI still plays, and you can read the original owner's last update from June 1999 saying he was moving to Angelfire. Oddly, the frozen version feels more honest, like a bug in amber, while the live one just rots in place. So why does a dead snapshot feel more alive than a page that never went down? Curious if anyone here checks the archive copy first before trusting a still-breathing old site.
0 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In0 Comments
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this discussion.