jeff wrote: > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > : From: Daniel J. Cody > : > : jeff wrote: > : > that's the problem though. matt has brought > : > up a valid issue of there being too many url > : > formats to get to an article. i think that's > : > a valid concern. > : > : I'm not introducing any new URL formats. Sure its > : a valid concern, but its got nothing to do with > : the redirecting. > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > sure it does. instead of using the article title, the redirect has the > string "301" in the article title's place. at the very least that should be > fixed so it's consistent with the rest of the links on the site to that > article. I didn't realize this was such an issue all the sudden. I mean, we're using other things besides '301' in 5 or 6 other places. But ya, sure we could use the article title there instead. I put 301 in there for a couple reasons though; 1.) To track which sites were sending us the most 'old school' URL's. That way, we could manually contact those people and have them update their links and over the course of a month or two have almost zero 'old school' URL's coming into our site anymore, fixing the problem for good. 2.) I didn't feel like putting more shit in there than I needed.. When i was working on it, I recall something being in the code that made me say 'Too much trouble/DB processing time' or something like that.. And since DB processing time seems to be such a big issue lately, maybe its not a bad call.. > no, i didn't miss isaac's post. however, i did miss a response to that one > saying that something was going to be done about it and talking about > possible solutions -- as i've been brought to task for recently. http://lists.evolt.org/adminarchive/Week-of-Mon-20010326/029648.html http://lists.evolt.org/adminarchive/Week-of-Mon-20010326/029662.html http://lists.evolt.org/adminarchive/Week-of-Mon-20010326/029675.html > if we're going to go this route with it, then why not make the entire > old-style url 404 handling app perform a redirect for all old urls and not > just articles? Seeing that 99.5% of all old school URL's that we were worried about were for articles, I didn't see it a pressing need to give 301's for people that may have bookmarked a users information page(for example). But ya, whatever.. > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > : To be clear, someone comes in with an old(evolt 1.0) > : URL like /index.cfm?menu=8&cid=444 - walker and you > : put that script together that would query the database, > : put together a new URL and display it on a page telling > : people to update their bookmarks. The problem with that > : whole scenerio though is that spiders weren't updating > : their 'bookmarks', hence the problem. > :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > yes, i agree. that was a problem. that's why i was asking if there was > some sort of meta tag or header we can send when displaying the "fix your > bookmarks" page that would instruct the search engines to update as well > along with the proper new link to the resource. I'll recycle this one more time: "To correct the problem, I have Cold Fusion return a 301 status code which stands for "Moved Permanently" along with a "Location" field informing the client where the document can now be found." > that's the sort of header i was looking for. i was just looking for > something that didn't involve a redirect so the user could be prompted to > fix things on their end. Its up to the client software how to handle the 'location' field in the header. Apparently, most browsers seem to do a complete redirect to the new URL. Its more important that search engines get our content IMO than making sure 50-75 people out there are made aware that they should update their bookmarks. .djc.