Oh bugger, looks like @internetarchive indexed the missing Geocities page since I last hit it and now redirects to Yahoo Domains. Will have to update that example.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Right, now serving a downloaded copy of my Geocities site instead of hitting
@internetarchive directly so the examples on https://4042302.org should all work perfectly now. Also: testament to how quickly you can set up a different version of your site with this technique :)Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not breaking the web is something we should do more of. We did this for GOV.UK using 301/410 and these two tools for managing and serving the mappings, respectively: https://github.com/alphagov/transition …https://github.com/alphagov/bouncer …
-
Indeed – and happy to hear it :) I’ve been burned by 301s too many times (hence the 302 approach) :) That way, you’re not barred from overriding a URL with a new version but, if you don’t, it’ll automatically flow to the older version.
-
How did 301 burn you? It's technically the correct way to redirect to where the content now lives isn't it?
-
Because browsers cache 301s. Once you 301, there’s no reliable way of undoing it. For all intents and purposes, consider that URL lost to you forever. e.g., seehttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/10136895/how-to-undo-a-301-redirect#10136960 …
-
But isn’t that the point? It is lost & found at the new location. All you have to do is clear your browser cache if you want to forget the new location.
-
And by extension, doesn't suggesting it is a temporary move (when it's not *really*) cost you in SEO terms?
-
Possibly. That wasn’t a design criterion for this. Search engines should be optimising for how people decide to build and use the Web, not the other way around.
-
Aye, but 1) that might be a bit ambitious in the short term and 2) tbh I think that many people have agreed that using a 301 is the right move here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why use a temporary redirect (302) instead of a permanent one (301)?
-
301s are cached client-side. You lose the ability to override a URL with a newer version and being confident that it will be seen (it won’t be unless people clear their caches – something you have no control over).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Indeed. Thanks for the reminder; will look into adding that as a link.
-
np. Oldest site I had a hand in preserving is this gem from 94. Sadly now falling into disrepair
https://www.le.ac.uk/open94/open.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
i agree we shouldn’t be breaking the web. converting 404s to 302s is a good approach. if theres s new URL that serves a similar purpose to the original, go for it. however, you may want to eliminate a piece of content because its no longer useful.
-
Usefulness depends on context you are coming from. If I'm trying to do something with old hardware, I still need to know "outdated" information that was true at the time. Better to leave the info & explain how it is not currently true than 404-Jedi-Mindtrick it out of existence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Two problems I see with this: 1. People often do not want to keep running an old stack for security/maintenance reasons. 2. What if the content still exists on the new site, but has simply moved? The old URL should refer to the latest version, not a possibly outdated one, no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.