On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 20:50 +0100, Stut wrote: > On 27 May 2008, at 19:18, Robert Cummings wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 18:04 +0100, Stut wrote: > >> On 27 May 2008, at 17:54, Robert Cummings wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 17:10 +0100, Stut wrote: > >>>> On 27 May 2008, at 17:06, Yui Hiroaki wrote: > >>>>> I would like to have some question. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, > >>>>> I am in http://example.com/?12324242 > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to REDIRECT from http://example.com/?1312323232 > >>>>> to http://example.com/ > >>>>> > >>>>> I can REDIRECT from http://example.com/index.php to http://example.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Please do tell me how I can redirect! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is the sample what I test below! > >>>>> > >>>>> <?php > >>>>> if ($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] == '/index.php') { > >>>>> header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently"); > >>>>> header("Location: http:///example.com/";); > >>>>> exit(); > >>>>> } > >>>>> ?> > >>>> > >>>> 1) Why? Redirects should be avoided where possible for performance > >>>> reasons. > >>> > >>> Didn't this topic get covered several months back. I always do > >>> redirects > >>> so as not to bugger browser history, titles, indexing, etc. If > >>> someone > >>> requests a page and they need to be logged in, I redirect to the > >>> login > >>> page, I never just present the login page... that's just incorrect > >>> from > >> > >> Personally I tend to only use redirects when a form handler has done > >> it's job to avoid evil messages when the user hits back. However, I > >> have used both redirected and non-redirected login workflows in the > >> past for various reasons, and I don't believe there is a "standard" > >> way to do it. It depends on how the site will be used and by whom. > >> > >>> a hierarchical and semantic point of view. Similarly, if I'm doing > >>> 404 > >>> handling with fuzzy request sniffing to determine what was actually > >>> requested, I again perform a redirect once I've ascertained what was > >>> probably desired. If you don't, then Google and other search engines > >>> will index these malformed URLs instead of the correct URL. > >> > >> The correct response to a 404 page is 404. No arguments. If you > >> redirect missing pages then your site effectively contains an > >> infinite > >> number of pages. By all means display a useful page when you return > >> your 404 but not marking it as a missing page does little if anything > >> for your SEO rank and absolutely nothing for your users. > > > > 404 "Not Found", but it was found, but it's not where you asked for > > it, > > it's over there... we've permanently moved it from here to there (even > > if only virtually)... let's redirect you to the correct location. > > Since > > you perform a redirect to the correct location, the content is > > appropriately indexed where it actually exists. If you return a 404 > > status I'm pretty sure Google discards the content. > > If you can successfully fulfil the request then it's not a 404, but I > would question why you're getting requests for URLs that don't exist > but that you can accurately service. If you're using the URL as a > search field then your site truly has no missing pages. > > However, in that case it's unlikely you'll be redirecting since for a > lot of queries you'll end up with multiple results meaning you're not > accurately fulfilling the request unless there's only one result from > the search. In that case I would agree that a redirect is the done > thing - except where the user got there by doing a search, which is > where things get cloudy as some would say it's appropriate to show > search results since that's the reasonable user expectation, and > others would say it should redirect to the single result - where I'd > come down on that would depend on the content and average user profile. > > *breath!* > > If you return a 404 Google does indeed discard the content - that's > the logical thing for it to do. 301's allow it to reduce the URLs > used to access your site to a core set of "real" content. Given that, > I agree to your premise that if you can successfully fulfil the > request by redirecting then you should, but only if it's an accurate > response to the request and not a "best guess". Best guesses should be > presented to the user (and Google) as a page suggesting content and > providing other ways to find it if your suggestion is not correct. > > I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop here. I hope the point I'm making > is clear in there somewhere. > > >> IMHO if you're going to use a semantic argument to defend one point > >> you need to carry that attitude throughout. > > > > My semantic argument is still intact. If I found it, then it's not > > deserving of "404 Not Found" status. Sure it may not be at the > > requested > > location, but that's what the moved status is for. > > The 301 status code was created so web developers can re-organise > their websites without adversely affecting the user experience. A side > effect of this is that search engines also use them to keep their > index up to date without affecting the sites ranking. > > > Here's a physical world analogy. Walk into a hardware store ask for > > object X. If they have it they will tell you. If they don't then > > either > > they will say, "Sorry, we don't have that. I don't have a clue where > > you > > can get it", or if they do know (and want to help) they'll say "It's > > over there at Rob's Hardware Store". What they almost certainly won't > > say is hang on, then run over to Rob's hardware Store, buy item X, > > come > > back and try to sell it to you. Almost certainly, but who knows, > > people > > do weird things sometimes :) > > Taking that analogy a step further, the original hardware store is > unlikely to pick you up and physically take you to Rob's Hardware > Store. In fact you said it... [they'll say "It's over there]... which > in web terms would be a page saying "we couldn't find what you were > looking for where you were looking, but we found it over there". > That's what I'm advocating. But, that's what the 301 does... it's say it's over there. Your browser is what actually takes you over there. And I know in Opera you can disable automatic redirects so that you actually have to say... hey I wanna go where I was told to go. > > So here's something else since you played the performance card. > > Click on > > the following link and tell me where you end up when not already > > logged > > in: > > > > http://mail.google.com/mail/ > > > > I'm sure Google had a good reason for that behaviour, as in it's > > follows > > more correctly the standard expected request behaviour, and I'm sure > > they get a LOT of hits ;) > > First off I really do wish people would get it out of their heads that > just because a company such as Google does something it's the best or > right way to do it. Secondly there are two separate scenario's that > are being mixed up. *lol* I didn't use Google because they are obviously correct, my primary reason for using Google was because they chose to redirect despite that high probably they would have concerns about performance. I'll let this die here. I know it wasn't really resolved the last time either. My hackles just go up when someone argues performance as a reason to present information in the wrong location :) For instance, let's have Google start an index for the following page: http://www.php.net/sha5 Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
