httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: Documentation URLs
Date Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:19:32 GMT
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Joshua Slive wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Astrid Ke├čler wrote:
> >> But note this could have adverse effects for things like google searches.
> >> Google would probably see the redirect and wipe out all the good karma we
> >> get from links to those pages.
> >
> > It is just a (imho short) question of time Google (and other search
> > engines) will renew their index and rebuild the karma for the new URIs.
> > Not to change the meaning of /docs will do us much more pain. I don't
> > want to hear "hey, forget apache. their docs are really outdated". And
> > this is, what may (will?) come some day, if we keep our current URI
> > structure.
> I don't believe this is entirely true.  The karma comes from the links, 
> and my observation is that links rarely get updated when content moves.
> And there are probably other consequences of changing URLs.
> I'd like to see more of a concrete statement of what problem we are trying 
> to solve.  If it is just a question of ugly urls, I don't think it is 
> worth solving.

The problem is that we are stating that people should use Apache 2.0,
but our website has the 1.3 docs as the default documentation on the
website when you go to /docs

I don't think that 'ugly urls' ever really occurred to me as a problem.
I would simply like /docs to point to the documentation for the
recommended version of our software.

Pilgrim, how you journey on the road you chose
To find out where the winds die and where the stories go
 --Pilgrim (Enya - A Day Without Rain)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message