I don't suppose there could be more of an effort to back up WOJ

[KevinSig]

Recently, when I went looking, I couldn't find this WOJ

"Time runs at varying speeds in the Nevernever, too.  Remember that there was a reason she was called "LaFey."  Ten minutes in some portion of the Nevernever where time runs at 10,000:1 or something could add up."

Original Link (not functional)

And it's something that I could have sworn was fully functional last year.  Also, given that some items in the WOJ thread aren't even transcribed, only linked, it can be troubling when something goes missing.

I know there's only so much that can be done, but if there was a way that at least Jim's posts were better archived, I'd certainly appreciate it.  His posts are usually interesting & it's always a shame when we lose them, just because they get to be on the older side.

[123456789blaaa]

Why are some of the WoJ's only linked anyways? Is it because of space?

I also never got why so many WoJ's were lost with the forum purge. I would have thought people would have been hoarding those things like they were gold.

[TheCuriousFan]

Recently, when I went looking, I couldn't find this WOJ
Original Link (not functional)

And it's something that I could have sworn was fully functional last year.  Also, given that some items in the WOJ thread aren't even transcribed, only linked, it can be troubling when something goes missing.

I know there's only so much that can be done, but if there was a way that at least Jim's posts were better archived, I'd certainly appreciate it.  His posts are usually interesting & it's always a shame when we lose them, just because they get to be on the older side.

I'll work on a backup soon (of the Jim posts and maybe the interviews).

[Shecky]

Um, guys? We have a limited staff, all of whom have actual lives they have to deal with outside the forum. "I don't suppose there could be more of an effort to back up WOJ" kind of sounds like our people are sitting on their private beach, sipping martinis spiced with the tears of deprived forumgoers.

In all seriousness, if you see a WoJ, please provide link and/or text (preferably both if possible, but we know that's not always the case) here:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/board,43.0.html

It's a group effort between our lovely WoJ experts and the community, y'know? We do appreciate any help you're willing to give in making sure everything shows up on the radar.

[TheCuriousFan]

Um, guys? We have a limited staff, all of whom have actual lives they have to deal with outside the forum. "I don't suppose there could be more of an effort to back up WOJ" kind of sounds like our people are sitting on their private beach, sipping martinis spiced with the tears of deprived forumgoers.

In all seriousness, if you see a WoJ, please provide link and/or text (preferably both if possible, but we know that's not always the case) here:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/board,43.0.html

It's a group effort between our lovely WoJ experts and the community, y'know? We do appreciate any help you're willing to give in making sure everything shows up on the radar.

Would it be practical for me to make a backup of Jim' posts (and possibly the interviews) in the curator's section? Or would it be better to make it on a different site? I've got enough free time to make a backup.

[Shecky]

Would it be practical for me to make a backup of Jim' posts (and possibly the interviews) in the curator's section? Or would it be better to make it on a different site? I've got enough free time to make a backup.

That's your call, brother; whatever you think best. I'm just here to keep the electric fence going.

[laura118b]

Why are some of the WoJ's only linked anyways? Is it because of space?

I also never got why so many WoJ's were lost with the forum purge. I would have thought people would have been hoarding those things like they were gold.

Because a lot of times they were links to external websites, pasted in to prove a posters point.  And more were lost in the purge than I think anyone knew would get lost.  There were close to a thousand pages of spoiler threads, nothing was ever deleted.  And people could pull a link from a thread with a key word search and never really know what thread it was in, or more the point how far back it was.  People made an effort for the most recent pages, but page 875...you don't think about it so much.  There was also some loss I believe when the site migrated to a new server.  There were some great big stuttering crashes around that time, and I think gobs were lost then.

[123456789blaaa]

Because a lot of times they were links to external websites, pasted in to prove a posters point.  And more were lost in the purge than I think anyone knew would get lost.  There were close to a thousand pages of spoiler threads, nothing was ever deleted.  And people could pull a link from a thread with a key word search and never really know what thread it was in, or more the point how far back it was.  People made an effort for the most recent pages, but page 875...you don't think about it so much.  There was also some loss I believe when the site migrated to a new server.  There were some great big stuttering crashes around that time, and I think gobs were lost then.

But wasn't there some kind of advance warning before the purge? I would think people would try their best to find them by typing "jim butcher" into advance search if they knew they were going to be deleted...

[laura118b]

Yes there was warning, but it's not that simple.  Someone would say, I'm making point A, then another poster would ask for proof, bam up would pop a link to an interview.  Unless you could remember the name of the link, the interview, something like that....poof.  They weren't always labeled Jim Butcher said this, sometimes it was as simple as "I read it.", "Where?", "Here." and there was the link for all to follow.  Hell's Bells, the only reason anyone knows so much was lost was because of those of us who can remember what we want to quote, or link to, and it no longer exists.

[wizard nelson]

technically if its something jim posted directly with his account the post should still exist in his profile under review posts shouldn't it? i've looked through alot of them and at the first few and it seems it goes back all the way even if the link to thread doesn't work? maybe?

[TheCuriousFan]

technically if its something jim posted directly with his account the post should still exist in his profile under review posts shouldn't it? i've looked through alot of them and at the first few and it seems it goes back all the way even if the link to thread doesn't work? maybe?

I tried that, the post that started this thread isn't there anymore.

*goes to work on backup*

Now then, do I just back up the ones I feel are relevant or do I back up all of them?

[Elegast]

Would it be practical for me to make a backup of Jim' posts (and possibly the interviews) in the curator's section? Or would it be better to make it on a different site? I've got enough free time to make a backup.

Maybe a simple evernote capture of Jim's posting history would be enough (or at least require much less work.)

[TheCuriousFan]

Maybe a simple evernote capture of Jim's posting history would be enough (or at least require much less work.)

Everwhat?

[Elegast]

Everwhat?

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s199/sh/78fcce70-2bbf-41fc-8dc3-a1ee29228a95/2bd5e40034ba20b455c7a863f0ef6037

It's only one click per page.

[TheCuriousFan]

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s199/sh/78fcce70-2bbf-41fc-8dc3-a1ee29228a95/2bd5e40034ba20b455c7a863f0ef6037

It's only one click per page.

That's convenient.