Jacques, what you are proposing here looks quite different from the ideas shared by Scott (that seemed a more flexible approach to me), but I am going to let Scott comment on this.
Jacopo On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to > > 1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in general.properties > (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz webapps in case > 2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole controller. > For instance you would want the 303 default for all webapps but eCommerce > where you want all redirects being 302. We could even refine more and have a > type in this specific element. or isntance use 302 only for url type and not > simple redirects (to separate concerns about double-submit and SEO) > > So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best. > > I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know > > Jacques > > From: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >> From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links >>> so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO perspective what code we used >>> when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket >>> change to 301 being introduced. >> >> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting (I >> called option 3, like the status-code attribute you suggested) >> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit issue. >> We use it in some place because it's an easy go compared with Front End >> rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal) >> >>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming >>> them as such instead of using the response codes e.g. >>> request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent. >>> >>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response >>> element? It could be used for a number of things even outside of redirects. >> >> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did not think >> about use outside of redirects though, have you any ideas yet? >> >> My plan would be: >> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it should be >> yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301) >> 2) Choose between >> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent (we >> have also cross-redirect and request-redirect-noparam) >> b) a status-code attribute on the response element >> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect response >> types >> >> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a choose >> between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code response attribute >> >> Jacques >> >>> Regards >>> Scott >>> >>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>> >>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, >>>> 302 and 303? >>>> >>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The >>>> difference between the two being that you shouldn't use the >>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>> >>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/ >>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which >>>> should not happen (You will have still the bots keeping the >>>> initial link referenced) >>>> >>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, >>>> right? >>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not >>>> good for SEO and eCommerce >>>> I Googled for "303 seo" >>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/ >>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/ >>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue >>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at >>>> bottom >>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages >>>> that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your seo." >>>> >>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form >>>> and mostly backend side (maybe keeping request-redirect-303 >>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and >>>> request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections without >>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all >>>> others redirect response types :/ >>>> >>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our >>>> current OOTB situation, at >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read >>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for >>>> POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and >>>> thus be recorded in logs." >>>> >>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>>> From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I >>>>> said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware) are >>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633 >>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132 >>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif >>>>>> >>>>>> HTH >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacques >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> >>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get >>>>>>> pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP 1.0 >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively >>>>>>> do you have an example of where a 301 redirect would be >>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> >>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me. >>>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, >>>>>>>>>> request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call >>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through >>>>>>>>>> RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302 >>>>>>>>>> redirections. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To keep short: >>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect >>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google >>>>>>>>>> for "301 vs 302") >>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an >>>>>>>>>> intranet, but for eCommerce it matters. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect) >>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301 >>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like >>>>>>>>>> 307). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option >>>>>>>>>> ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not have >>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer >>>>>>>>>> option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be >>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>
