Elaine Ashton wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:12 PM, Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I am very aware of google and its wonders, but this all seems to be
>> coming from an assumption that we've all been very bad at maintaining
>> links
>> and therefor there is no reason to maintain them in the migration. yes,
>> there are broken links, but why force them all to be broken?
>
> Sorry, I was just pointing out how many, if not most, folks likely
> manage to find content on the site, even the stuff with non-broken
> links.
So you admit you'll break most folks since their Google searches will
return the old links, at least until Google re-indexes every single
page on the site, and we have no idea how long that will take.
> but I will point out that remapping every URL from the current site to the
> new urls is not very realistic.
Why? You've got all the information you need to do it already since
you know the old URL and new URL of every page you're converting with
the transition script - outputing that to a list of redirects seems
trivial and far more realistic than anyone but your team thinking it's a
good idea to break all the existing links in books, CD's, slide decks, blogs,
web pages, source code (look at the ON files for the license information
lately?), search engines, and other web sites.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- [email protected]
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
