[thesite] old links

[aardvark]

> From: "Daniel J. Cody" <djc at members.evolt.org>
>
> > > except the way we're doing it *is* standards compliant
> >
> > to 1.0... or 1.1... or one of them...
>
> see, to me, this is like using HTML 3.2 instead of HTML4.01 because
> its easier. why the double standard?

actually, we use HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML 1.0 because of this
very reason... we want more people to see our site as intended
than not (or see it, period)...

that's actually a really good analogy...

> > SEs regularly traverse pages i've built with 302s...
>
> they got it with the 301's there(obviously) too.

yeah, but what if the user clicks the link (like on Webword) and
can't get there?  what good is an indexed page if you can't see it?

either way, i trust you guys will make the right decision, but my
only goal was to get it to work for me...  and there are a lot of me
(win2k/IE5.5) out there...

and we all know that many mes aren't nice...