. These things might already exist on the questions you looked at.
Also, a major problem with any automatic scheme to fix dead links is the potential for error. A link that points to something else, or to something that is no longer a valid answer, is a lot worse than a dead link, in the same way that misinformation is a lot worse than a lack of information. It really might confuse users, or have them using outdated software.
If the bulk of the dead links continues to grow, and if popular answers get hit as well, I really would like to do something about it, largely because it makes the site looks dated and unprofessional. As it stands, an attempt at fixing it would be nice, but not something I think is important. Personally, I have encountered very few dead links as a casual user.

A:

The world wide web's sole purpose was to link relevant documents together. With no (working) links, there's no web.
So I think every effort that can be undertaken to fix broken links, is a good effort.
We shouldn't rely on users fixing their own post. We have way more inactive than active users. 
Perhaps there could be something like a "broken link queue", where users can report a broken link (A) and suggest a replacement (B). Then when agreed upon by reviewers and/or moderators, the system (Community user) could replace all instances in all posts of link A with link B.
Of course this is very spam-sensitive, so the actual implementation details needs to be worked out pretty tight.

A:

I propose another hybrid of the previous broken link queue (as was mentioned above in comments and other answers) and an automated process to fix broken links with an archived version (which has also been suggested). 
The broken link queue should focus on editing and fixing the links in a post (as opposed to closing it). It'd be similar to the suggested edits queue, but with the focus intended to correct links not spelling and grammar. This could be done by only allowing a user to edit the links.
One possibility, I envision is presenting the user with the links in the post and a status on whether or not the link is available. If it's not available, give the user a way to change that specific link. Utilizing this post, I have a quick mock up of what I propose such a review task looks like:

All the links that appear in
. These things might already exist on the questions you looked at. 
 Also, a major trouble with any automatic schema to fix dead connection is the electric potential for error. A link that points to something else, or to something that is no longer a valid solution, is a draw worse than a all in liaison, in the same room that misinformation is a lot worse than a lack of data. It really might confuse users, or have them using outdated software. 
 If the bulk of the dead link continues to grow, and if popular answer get hit as well, I really would like to make something about it, largely because it makes the site looks dated and unprofessional. As it stands, an attack at fixing it would be nice, but not something I think is important. Personally, I have encountered very few dead liaison as a casual user. 

 A: 

 The world wide web's sole purpose was to link relevant documents together. With no (working) link, there's no web. 
 So I intend every campaign that can be undertaken to fix broken links, is a effective effort. 
 We shouldn't rely on users fixing their own mail. We have way more inactive than active users. 
 Perhaps there could be something like a " broken connection queue ", where users can report a broken link (A) and indicate a replacement (barn). Then when agreed upon by reviewers and/or moderators, the system (Community exploiter) could replace all instances in all posts of liaison A with link B. 
 Of course this is very spam - sensitive, so the actual implementation detail needs to be bring out pretty taut. 

 A: 

 I project another hybrid of the former broken link queue (as was mention above in comments and other answer) and an automated summons to fix broken links with an archived version (which has also been suggested). 
 The broken link queue should focus on editing and repair the links in a post (as oppose to closing it). It'd be similar to the suggested edits queue, but with the focus intended to correct radio link not spelling and grammar. This could be done by only allowing a user to edit the links. 
 One hypothesis, I envision is presenting the exploiter with the links in the post and a status on whether or not the link is available. If it's not available, give the user a manner to change that specific link. Utilizing this mail, I have a quick mock up of what I propose such a review task look like: 

 All the links that appear in
. Thfse things might already exist on the qoewtions you lkoked at.
Xlso, a major problem with anb auromatuc scheme to fix dead uinks is nhe potenrial dor error. E link tmct pojkts tm something elsg, or to somedhing that is to llnger a valid answer, is a lot worse than a dfad link, in thg samt wwy tgat misinformation is a lot worse fhan a nack of inforkation. It really might convuse users, or have thel using outeateq software.
If ghe bulk of the dead ljnks continues to grow, and if pupulax answers ggc hih as well, I ceally would like bp do smmethinb about it, larnely uecayse it makes the site looks dated and ugprofessimncl. As it stands, an atrenpt aj fixhng kr wuuls ue hice, bkt iot somethihg I think us important. Personsljj, I have encohntereq dery few dead links as a casual user.

A:

Tht wormd wide web's sole purpowe was to link relevajt documegts together. With no (working) links, there's no web.
Sm I tiivk tvcvy ewdogt that can be undertaken to fix broken links, js a good effort.
We shouldn't rrlj pg users fixine theix osn post. We have waj more ynactuve than wctife users. 
Perhaps there coule be somethiug oike a "broken link queue", wherz userx can report a broken link (A) and suggest a geplacemehg (B). Then when agfeec gpon by reviewers and/or moqerators, vhe svstem (Coomunoty usqr) could rfplacc all instances in wll plsds of link A with link B.
Of course this is very spam-sensothve, so the cctual implementatijn details neebs to be workdd out prenty tight.

E:

I propose agother hybrid lf the previmus brokqn lunk wueue (ar was mentioned above in comments qnd other answers) end xh automated proetss to fix broken kinys rinh en arsvived versiot (whkch nas auso been sungerted). 
The broken link quege sgould focus on ediyikg and fizing the links in a ppst (as opposed to flosiig it). Mt'd be siiilar to the suggested edits qheue, but aitm the focus igteneed to correet links not spelling and grammar. This ciuld be done by onoy allowing a user jo tdit the linkx.
One [ossibilidy, I envision is prewenting the user eith the links in the post dnd a status on whether or not the link is available. If it's not available, give the user a way to chamge tvac s'ecific linn. Utilizing this iost, I have a quick mock up of wiat I propmsz such a review task looks lile:

Xll the links that appear in
. These things might already exist on you at. Also, major problem with dead is the potential error. A link points to something else, or to that is no longer a valid answer, is a lot worse than a link, in the same way that misinformation is a lot worse than a of It might users, or have them using outdated software. If the bulk of the dead links continues to and if popular answers get hit as well, really would like to something about it, largely because makes site looks and As stands, an attempt fixing it would be nice, but not something I think is important. Personally, I have encountered very dead links casual user. The wide sole purpose was relevant documents together. With no (working) web. So I think every effort that can undertaken to broken links, is a good effort. shouldn't rely on users fixing their own post. have way more inactive than active users. Perhaps there could be something like a "broken where users can report broken link (A) suggest replacement Then agreed upon reviewers and/or moderators, the system (Community user) could replace all instances all posts of link A with link B. Of course very so the actual details needs to be out tight. A: I propose of previous (as mentioned in comments and other and an automated process to broken links with an been suggested). The broken link queue should focus editing and fixing the links in a (as opposed to closing it). It'd be similar to the suggested edits but with intended to correct links not spelling and grammar. could be done by allowing a user to edit the links. One possibility, envision presenting the with the links the post and status on whether the link available. it's the user a way to change specific Utilizing this post, I have quick of what I propose such a review task looks like: All the links that appear
. These things might already exIst on the quEstioNs yOu lOoKed aT.
AlsO, a major problem WIth aNy automatic scheme to fix Dead lInKS is tHE pOtentIal for eRRoR. a LinK tHaT poInTS tO someThiNg else, oR to somethiNg tHaT is no longer a VAlId answer, is A loT worse than a dEad Link, in ThE saME way tHat MisinFormatIOn is a lOt worse thAn A Lack of INformatION. IT reaLly might confuse usERs, OR have them using OutdatEd SOfTWAre.
if tHe bulk of thE dEad liNKs contiNUeS TO GroW, And if popular aNswers get hiT As wEll, I reAlLy wOUld likE to do SoMEthIng about it, lArgeLy because It makeS The site LOoks datEd and uNprOfeSsioNAl. as It sTaNDs, aN AtTemPT at Fixing it WoUlD be niCe, buT NOT SomeThiNg I tHink iS important. PerSonAlly, i HavE encoUnterEd veRy Few deAd linkS as a cAsUal user.

A:

The worlD widE web's sole PurPoSe wAs To linK RelevaNt dOcuMents toGether. WITh nO (wORKInG) links, there's no web.
SO I THInK every efFort thAT cAn BE undertaKeN to Fix bROKen liNks, iS A gOod efforT.
We shoULdN't Rely on uSeRs fixiNg TheIr oWn posT. we haVe way mOre inactIve thAN active users. 
PeRHaps there coulD Be SOMeTHing LikE a "broken linK queUE", wheRe usERs Can REport A brokEn LInK (a) and suggest a replaceMeNt (B). TheN when Agreed upon by rEviewers anD/OR ModeratoRs, thE SySTem (Community usEr) couLd replace aLL instancEs in aLl posts oF link A witH LInk B.
Of coUrsE thIs iS veRY SpAm-sensitive, so THE actUaL implemEntAtion deTaiLs nEedS to Be Worked out Pretty tiGhT.

A:

i pRoPosE anotHEr hybrid Of The PrEviOus brOKen linK queuE (as wAs MeNTioNed abovE In COMmenTs AnD othEr aNsWers) aNd an AUtoMated prOcess to fiX brOKen lInKs With an aRchived versioN (wHich has alsO bEen SuggesTED). 
The brokEn link queue should focus oN Editing And FixinG the Links in a pOst (As oppoSed TO closiNg it). It'D be siMiLar TO The suGGEsTed EdIts queue, buT WIth The foCuS intEnded to Correct links not speLLinG and grammar. ThIs cOuld BE DoNe bY OnLY alLoWIng A USer to edit the linKs.
One possiBiLItY, I envision IS prEsEnting tHe user wIth thE Links in The post anD a status oN wHethER Or nOt the link iS availabLe. If it's noT AvailABlE, give The User a wAy To cHange That spECifIc linK. UtiliZiNg this Post, I HaVe a quick Mock up of what I propose sucH a reviEw tasK loOks like:

AlL thE LinKs that appEar iN
. These things might alrea dy exist o n the  qu est io ns y ou l ooked at.
Also ,  a m ajor problem with anyautom at i c sc h em e tofix dea d  l i n ksis  t hepo t en tialfor  error.  A link th atpo ints to some t hi ng else, o r t o somethingtha t is n olon g er aval id an swer,i s a lo t worse t ha n  a dea d  link,i n  t he s ame way that misi n fo r mation is a lo t wors et ha n a l ack  of inform at ion.I t reall y  m i g h t c o nfuse users,or have the m  us ing ou td ate d  softw are.If the  bulk of th e de ad linkscontin u es to g r ow, and  if po pul aransw e rs  g ethi t  as we ll, I r eally wo ul dliketo d o s o meth ing  abo ut it , largely bec aus e it mak es th e sit e lo ok s dat ed and  unpr of essional. As it  sta nds, an a tte mp t a tfixin g  it wo uld  be  nice,but not som et h i n gI think is importa nt . Pe rsonally , I ha v een c ountered  v ery  few d ead l inks as  a casua l user . 
A: 

The w or ld wid eweb 'ssolep urpo se was  to link  rele v ant documentst ogether. With no ( wo r king ) l inks, there 's n o  web .
So Ithi n k eve ry ef fo r tt hat can be undertak en  to fi x bro ken links, is  a good ef f o r t.
We sh ould n 't rely on usersfixin g their ow n  post. W e hav e way mo re inacti v e  than ac tiv e u ser s.P er haps there co u l d be  s omethin g l ike a " bro ken  li nkqu eue", whe re users  c an  r ep ort  a br o ken link  ( A)an d s ugges t  a rep lacem ent(B ). The n whena gr e e d up on  b y re vie we rs an d/or mod erators , the sys tem (Com mu ni ty user ) could repla ce  all insta nc esin all p osts oflink A with link B.
Ofc ourse t his  is v eryspam-sens iti ve, so  th e  actua l impl ement at ion d etail s ne eds  t o be worke d out  pret ty  tig ht.

A: 

I propose anothe r  hy brid of the p rev ious b ro ken li n k q ue u e ( a s  was mentionedabove in c om m en ts and oth e r a ns wers) a nd an a utoma t ed proc ess to fi x brokenli nksw i than archive d versio n (whichh as al s obeensug gested ).  
T he br oken l i nkqueue  shoul dfocuson ed it ing andfixing the links in a p ost (a s opp ose d to clos ing it) . It'd be  sim ilar to th e s ugg ested  ed i ts qu eue, bu t w i th th e fo c us intend e dtoc o rr ect links n o t spe lling  an d  gramm ar.This could be don e  by only allow inga use r t o  edi tthe links.
One  po ss i b ility, I  e nvision ispresenti ng the u ser wi th the  linksi n  t h e post  and  astatus on  wh et h er or n ot  t h e link  isav ailabl e. Ifi t'sn o t available, giv e the u ser a way  to c ha nge tha t  spe cific link . Utilizing  thispost , I h ave a q ui ck moc k u pof what Ip ropose su ch areviewta sk l ook s like :

A l l  thelink stha t appeari n 
. These_things might_already exist on the_questions you_looked_at.
Also, a_major_problem with any_automatic scheme to_fix dead links is_the potential for_error._A link that points to something else, or to something that is no longer_a_valid answer,_is_a_lot worse than a dead_link, in the same way_that misinformation_is a lot worse than a lack of_information._It really might_confuse users, or have them using outdated software.
If the_bulk of the dead links continues_to grow, and_if_popular_answers get hit as_well, I really would like to_do something about it, largely because_it makes the site looks dated and_unprofessional. As it stands, an attempt_at fixing it would be_nice, but_not something I think is_important. Personally, I_have encountered_very few dead_links as a casual user.

A:

The world_wide web's sole_purpose was to link relevant documents_together._With no (working)_links,_there's_no web.
So_I think every_effort_that can_be_undertaken to fix broken links, is_a_good effort.
We shouldn't rely on users fixing_their own post. We_have_way more inactive than_active users. 
Perhaps there could_be something like a "broken link_queue", where_users can_report a broken link (A) and suggest a replacement (B). Then_when agreed upon by reviewers and/or_moderators, the system (Community_user) could_replace_all instances in_all_posts of_link A with link B.
Of course this_is very_spam-sensitive, so the actual implementation details_needs to be worked_out_pretty tight.

A:

I propose another hybrid of_the previous broken link queue (as_was mentioned above in comments_and_other_answers) and an automated process_to fix broken links with an_archived version (which_has also been suggested). 
The broken link_queue_should focus on editing and fixing_the_links in a post (as opposed_to_closing_it). It'd be similar to_the suggested edits queue, but with_the focus intended to correct links not spelling and_grammar. This could_be done by only allowing_a_user_to edit the links.
One possibility, I envision is presenting the_user with_the links in_the post and a status on whether or not the_link is available. If it's not available,_give the user a way to change that specific link. Utilizing_this post, I have a quick mock up_of what I propose such a review_task looks like:

All the_links_that appear in