On 6 September 2013 11:55, Jeremy Baron <jer...@tuxmachine.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world > with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on > dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of > people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during > their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader > must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect > instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly > enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our > Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly > spoiled. > > that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect > directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a > redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you > described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects) > > we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and > otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name > directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the > alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar. > > the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a > human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's > done a study) > > -Jeremy > > > Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer. Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
