Michael B Allen ioplex-at-gmail.com |nyphp MAIN ONE dev/internal group
use| wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 3:18 AM, inforequest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Campbell jcampbell1-at-gmail.com |nyphp MAIN ONE dev/internal group
Why is that exactly? I think I agree with you, but I just want to make
sure I know why 301 would be better.
The short answer is, 301 passes google page rank, 302 does not.
-John C
I'm not sure page rank is an issue here, as you probably want to restrict
search engines from spidering/indexing your secure pages (especially any
shopping cart stuff that would make for meaningless duplicate junk). If
you've told the search engines that https is off-limits, then who cares what
sort of redirect you use?
But I think that's a different issue that should be dealt with using
different methods (e.g. robots.txt). Someone might want crawlers under
HTTPS. It's not likely. But it's possible.
Conceptually a 301 means "the resource you're trying to access is
actually invalid and is represented by the following resource
instead".
So the HTTP to HTTPS transition would be much better characterized by the 301.
The 302 is better for things like redirects after form posts. For
example, you might access the route /account/logon and get a valid 200
response that presents a form and then submit that to the same route
and get a 302 to a different page.
Mike
Yes. Wonderful to see this level of discussion on the list btw....
-=john
_______________________________________________
New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
http://www.nyphpcon.com
Show Your Participation in New York PHP
http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
