

Ask HN: Why don't Digg, Reddit show a cached copy of a submitted site? - paolomaffei

The title says it all, there still are a lot of sites that go down after being slashdotted.<p>So why social news submitting sites don't just show a cached page of the site? (Also, if they feel like it they would be able to "justify" showing their header with ads above the site in a frame.)<p>How comes this problem wasn't addressed? Or was it?<p>Maybe this wouldn't help for AJAX sites (but it won't break them aswell), but for the rest of the static content i am pretty sure it will<p>Do you think this might be a startup idea? Perhaps it can be enhanced with a "show a page how it was 5 days ago, 3 months ago, etc" so if you suspect the page might change you can show it "freezed" without having to do ugly things like screenshoting it and submitting to tinypic.com
======
mooism2
Showing their own ads above a cached copy of the page? Sounds like profiting
from copyright infringement. Lawsuits ahoy!

However: prime Coral Cache with the page before publishing the link, monitor
the servers of the submitted site, and offer the Corel Cache link instead of
the original link if the submitted site is struggling to cope with the load?
That seems like a good idea.

------
vyrotek
There is <http://www.duggback.com>

