[thesite] old links

[Daniel J. Cody]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Filip Salomonsson wrote:
> On seeing a 301, it _should_ only index the "new" url. 302s are a bit trickier,
> I suppose, since the "old" url likely doesn't provide much of a page to index,
> but may well do so at some other occasion.

yup

> I don't know how search engines actually handle 301s today, but we to loads of
> 302s at shorl.com, and we've noticed that Google actually indexes our urls
> (those returning the 302s), but with the content of the "target" urls.
> Examples: <http://google.com/search?q=site%3Ashorl.com+-xyzzy>

i think when we launched 2.0 and had to deal with the consequences of the
404 template thing, we delt with this very issue. thats why the 301 was
put in place - google was returning the 'this page can be found <here>'
pages for almost every article - and they've picked it up well for the
last year...

.djc.