Donor vetting: Wayback history vs. live snapshot only

Donor vetting: Wayback history vs. live snapshot only

A vetting technique comparison surfaced in a thread.

— Worth a read: a post recommending the Wayback Machine on every donor — a site that was a Chinese-language gambling blog two years ago and is now a 'lifestyle' site is a rebuilt expired domain, not a real publisher.
— Counterpoint: a faster crowd that just checks the live site's recent post dates and traffic trend, arguing history doesn't matter if it ranks today.
— Also circulating: a sharper take combining both — Wayback to catch the niche-flip, live metrics to confirm current health.

Editor's note: live metrics tell you if it works now; archive history tells you whether it'll survive the next algorithm pass that targets rebuilt domains.

Pick of the week: spend the two minutes on Wayback for any donor whose topic feels suspiciously broad or recently changed.