The Dead Link Conundrum

So I got it into my head the other day that I want a category specific for all these one-off look-it’s-a-link posts that I write, and I’m moving the links over, but I’m also finding a lot of dead links.

I hate hate hate dead links.

So until now I’ve been labeling them as dead and removing the HTML, because I hate dead links.

I’m seriously considering deleting them if they’re dead. But that’s treading a fine line in the blogosphere, because it could be considered revisionist history, and revisionist history is “bad”. I’m just not sure that revisionist history to remove garbage links that don’t do anyone any good because they’re vague references to a link that doesn’t work anyway is also bad.

So do I nuke dead-link one-link-ers or keep them?

5 responses to “The Dead Link Conundrum”

  1. peri_renna says:

    What about the Internet Archive? Mark the dead links with a strikethrough and, if it’s archived, put in the alternate link.

  2. kirabug says:

    Wait, I’m confused. What are you suggesting? You mean if it shows up on The Internet Archive? Pretty much none of my site’s up there.

  3. jzimbert says:

    I believe he means the link you’re linking to. If it’s dead, say it’s dead, and link to the archived version if available.

  4. jamie says:

    so, basically, you’ve resurrected the link from the dead… would that make them undead links?

  5. kirabug says:

    Oh, ok, so I could probably do that with dead links going forward but I have lots of removed links – should I just delete those posts?