On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 17:51 -0500, Richard Lynch wrote: > On Wed, June 13, 2007 3:04 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > But you might not. It depends on what you decide to include() instead > > of > > redirecting. I guess in the included source you could code aorund not > > having the correct URL parameters and default to something sensible, > > but > > that still doesn't address the content/request mismatch. > > Bought a house, and I've been away from the list, so I'm resurrecting > this only to point out... > > As far as I'm concerned, if it requires a login to see X, and you ask > for X and aren't logged in, seeing the login page with the URL X *IS* > the perfectly valid answer for what you should see. > > If I needed Google to index my content that requires a login, then I > don't need a login because that's just a plain silly setup... > > Google's gonna have a bunch of pages that users can't see unless they > login? > > Then it's not a login; It's a scam to collect a bunch of user data. > > :-) :-) :-) > > PS > And I could just look at the Google User Agent and not require login > for that, which anybody could forge, but so what? They'll get the > same damn info by knowing what to search for in Google anyway, if I'm > giving Google the content without a login.
I guess what you're suggesting is a lot like using a relative URL in a redirect... it works, it saves some time, but it's not quite right ;) Cheers, Rob. -- ........................................................... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ........................................................... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
