A website and email is one of the only means to control your own content.
Podcasts are starting to get centralised, like how Spotify bought out Anchor.
The alternative of hosting ones own podcast doesn't seem easy, nor seems cheap. I explored that idea for a big with my own podcast, The Language of My Soul, but it ain't worth it.
I would say email is more resilient than URIs, with the 6000-person mailing list you create 6000 copies of every message you send. And then on top of that mailing lists include archives going back a long time.
I reorganized some things on my website some time ago and set up 301 redirects. I looked at where the links were coming from.
The site with links to my site now consists of a placeholder page with a link to the Internet Archive. As much as I like stable URLs, I think that I would like to encourage people to just keep as much online as possible, and if you keep your content online, that’s commendable. It’s worthy of praise just staying online.
Okay, so about "cool URIs don't change".¹ 20 years ago I accepted this as obvious truth. Now I'm less sure.
URIs used to be like phone numbers, in that they were designed for humans — today, they're designed for SEO. But today, nobody memorizes phone numbers — people depend on their phone's Contacts app. Similarly, nobody remembers URIs beyond the domain name — they depend on bookmarks, browser history auto-complete, app-specific search functionality, and search engines.
Podcast feed URIs change all the time (old feed URIs redirect to new) and zero people know or care. I believe the same is generally true for web pages.
Playing devil's advocate to myself, AFAIK no browser automatically updates bookmarks even in the face of permanent redirects. They should, right?
Cool URLs not changing isn't about people memorizing them or even really about personal bookmarks: it's about links.
Accumulating links to and from your content over the course of many years isn't just valuable because of SEO, it's valuable because you're helping to build a legacy of interlinked content. And that's a cool thing to contribute to!
If the link still works it didn't change in that sense. Redirects are totally fine and a way of implementing "Cool URLs don't change". Having redirects doesn't invalidate the principle.
Sure but hotlinking I don’t think makes sense anymore. Every link will eventually die so the only way to really ensure that links live as long as the content that they point to is to host a copy yourself.
There's multiple external links on this HN discussion page alone. HN would be a very different place if it insisted on mirroring all external content instead of using links
It was a quasi-workable sentiment when "webmasters" were operating in arcane BOFH mode. But now, Bob from marketing needs that dumb-ass vanity URL and sure it will displace the dumb-ass vanity URL Cindy needed two years ago. Administration has encroached that far.
Sure, for a permanent architecture where we are putting information on the web to slowly accumulate human knowledge, it is a great idea. It dissolves like wedding cake decorations in a church fire under the power of Marketing.
> It would not make sense if a bookmark could randomly change.
Ah, my preference is the opposite — if I have to constantly babysit bookmarks for 301 redirects, that's technically correct but fails the "job to be done" of it.
How do you preserve old URLs when porting between different website generators (Wordpress, Jekyll, other static sites) with different URL schemes for the same page?
Podcasts are starting to get centralised, like how Spotify bought out Anchor.
The alternative of hosting ones own podcast doesn't seem easy, nor seems cheap. I explored that idea for a big with my own podcast, The Language of My Soul, but it ain't worth it.