NYCPHP Meetup

[inforequest]

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 <1j0lkq002 at sneakemail.com> 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