[theforum] URL Schemas & missing data

Martin Burns yumyum at easyweb.co.uk
Thu Dec 2 03:21:07 CST 2004


On Thu, December 2, 2004 1:56 am, aardvark said:
> Martin Paul Burns wrote:
> [...]
>> Yep, again: given. Does it have to be the *same* URLs as at present? Or
>> will a similar schema be acceptable as long as it has the functionally
>> redundant bit that helps search engines? And does it matter if existing
>> articles have one schema, and new ones another?
> [...]
>
> erm, i would have to say same as existing...
>
> if it isn't, and no one can describe specifically how it will differ
> (will old URLs issues 301s or 302s? how will it handle a 404? how do we
> get the keywords in place? what about all the bizarre URLs rudy and i
> used to make up?), then i'm not comfortable moving away from it...

That's my assumption too - if we can't describe how it's working, then why
would we do it?

We won't get the keywords btw until we get the data dump. Which we're now
10 days late with. Jeff? Where's the data?

> good enough is *not* good enough for evolt.org...

Well by definition it is... but it depends on how you define 'good enough'.

> out-fricking-standing should be our minimum goal...

OK, so that's "good enough" for us. So what's that as an objective
standard? How will we know when we've got that?

Cheers
Martin
-- 

Wooden toys for toddlers:
http://www.purpur.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=95
Cute Baby Socks:
http://www.purpur.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=85_96



More information about the theforum mailing list