However, before deleting an article, CNET reportedly maintains a local copy, sends the story to The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, and notifies any currently employed authors that might be affected at least 10 days in advance.
People are freaking out so bad about this story. They’re doing the right thing and archiving it before deletion. Settle down.
How many CNET articles from 2004 are you reading that you’re getting this angry about it?
Storage and bandwidth have never been cheaper. If you’re not doing some grand replacement of the CMS, it’s less effort NOT to remove old content.
I love the argument they’re trying to make: if they prune enough content, everything looks fresh and new. So you’re effectively discarding one of the most valuable assets you have-- the fact you’ve been doing the same thing for 25 years and have some established credibility-- for a perception of “fast” that could be imitated by any number of content mills or AI services.
If you’re looking at a review of a RTX 4090, it says a lot when the same site also scored the Radeon VII, Geforce 3 Ti, and S3 Savage.
