You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com> on 2012/07/13 10:23:55 UTC
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to
1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in general.properties (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz webapps
in case
2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole controller. For instance you would want the 303 default for all
webapps but eCommerce where you want all redirects being 302. We could even refine more and have a type in this specific element. or
isntance use 302 only for url type and not simple redirects (to separate concerns about double-submit and SEO)
So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best.
I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know
Jacques
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO
>> perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being
>> introduced.
>
> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting (I called option 3, like the status-code attribute you
> suggested)
> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit issue. We use it in some place because it's an easy go
> compared with Front End rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal)
>
>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming them as such instead of using the response codes e.g.
>> request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent.
>>
>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response element? It could be used for a number of things even
>> outside of redirects.
>
> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did not think about use outside of redirects though, have you any
> ideas yet?
>
> My plan would be:
> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it should be yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301)
> 2) Choose between
> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent (we have also cross-redirect and request-redirect-noparam)
> b) a status-code attribute on the response element
> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect response types
>
> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a choose between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code
> response attribute
>
> Jacques
>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, 302 and 303?
>>>
>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The difference between the two being that you shouldn't use
>>> the
>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>>
>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/
>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which should not happen (You will have still the bots keeping
>>> the
>>> initial link referenced)
>>>
>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, right?
>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not good for SEO and eCommerce
>>> I Googled for "303 seo"
>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/
>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/
>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue
>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at bottom
>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your
>>> seo."
>>>
>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form and mostly backend side (maybe keeping
>>> request-redirect-303
>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections
>>> without
>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all others redirect response types :/
>>>
>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our current OOTB situation, at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read
>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and
>>> thus be recorded in logs."
>>>
>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware)
>>>> are
>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633
>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132
>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP
>>>>>> 1.0
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do you have an example of where a 301 redirect would be
>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call
>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302
>>>>>>>>> redirections.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To keep short:
>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect
>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google for "301 vs 302")
>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an intranet, but for eCommerce it matters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not have
>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be
>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Adrian Crum <ad...@sandglass-software.com>.
On 7/13/2012 9:23 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to
>
> 1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in
> general.properties (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz
> webapps in case
url.properties
> 2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole
> controller. For instance you would want the 303 default for all
> webapps but eCommerce where you want all redirects being 302. We could
> even refine more and have a type in this specific element. or isntance
> use 302 only for url type and not simple redirects (to separate
> concerns about double-submit and SEO)
>
> So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best.
>
> I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only
>>> follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO
>>> perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really
>>> only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being introduced.
>>
>> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting
>> (I called option 3, like the status-code attribute you suggested)
>> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit
>> issue. We use it in some place because it's an easy go compared with
>> Front End rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal)
>>
>>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider
>>> naming them as such instead of using the response codes e.g.
>>> request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent.
>>>
>>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response
>>> element? It could be used for a number of things even outside of
>>> redirects.
>>
>> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did
>> not think about use outside of redirects though, have you any ideas yet?
>>
>> My plan would be:
>> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it
>> should be yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301)
>> 2) Choose between
>> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or
>> url-permanent (we have also cross-redirect and request-redirect-noparam)
>> b) a status-code attribute on the response element
>> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect
>> response types
>>
>> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a
>> choose between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code
>> response attribute
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use
>>>> 301, 302 and 303?
>>>>
>>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on :
>>>> <<The difference between the two being that you shouldn't use the
>>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>>
>>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/
>>>>
>>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors
>>>> which should not happen (You will have still the bots keeping the
>>>> initial link referenced)
>>>>
>>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to
>>>> use 303, right?
>>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is
>>>> not good for SEO and eCommerce
>>>> I Googled for "303 seo"
>>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/
>>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/
>>>>
>>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue
>>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I
>>>> read at bottom
>>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the
>>>> pages that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your seo."
>>>>
>>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for
>>>> form and mostly backend side (maybe keeping request-redirect-303
>>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and
>>>> request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections
>>>> without
>>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate
>>>> all others redirect response types :/
>>>>
>>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence
>>>> and our current OOTB situation, at
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read
>>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not
>>>> desirable for POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and
>>>> thus be recorded in logs."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but
>>>>> like I said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware) are
>>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a
>>>>>>> Post/Redirect/Get pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or
>>>>>>> 302 on HTTP 1.0
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or
>>>>>>> alternatively do you have an example of where a 301 redirect
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other
>>>>>>>> opinions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect,
>>>>>>>>>> request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call
>>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through
>>>>>>>>>> RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections
>>>>>>>>>> do 302 redirections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To keep short:
>>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect
>>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just
>>>>>>>>>> Google for "301 vs 302")
>>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in
>>>>>>>>>> an intranet, but for eCommerce it matters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want,
>>>>>>>>>> like 307).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option
>>>>>>>>>> ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to
>>>>>>>>>> prefer option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be
>>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference
>>>>>>>>>> for 3...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
At this stage I believe it's best to discuss this in the Jira I created for that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5109
No needs to duplicate things
Jacques
From: "Paul Piper" <pp...@ilscipio.com>
> Perhaps we should reopen the discussion here. I am in favor of the approach
> in favor, except for the stand on using 303 as a default value to all pages.
>
> A 303 status response is a very dangerous thing and could potentially harm
> those who do not understand the use of it. A potential danger is described
> (among other sources) here: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/.
>
> Though I do agree that the ecommerce application is only 1 of many potential
> uses of the OFBiz framework, i still disagree that it means that we can use
> 303 responses lightly. By setting a default value of 303 to all, we impose
> it onto those who do not understand when it should be used, which are
> probably most of the ofbiz users out there. The effects can be quite harmful
> to them all...
>
> Instead I would argue that the default response should be 301 in all cases
> and instead of using 303 we should opt for other means to prevent double
> posting - wherever we see the necessity...
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Controllers-redirections-do-302-tp4633942p4638607.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Paul Piper <pp...@ilscipio.com>.
Perhaps we should reopen the discussion here. I am in favor of the approach
in favor, except for the stand on using 303 as a default value to all pages.
A 303 status response is a very dangerous thing and could potentially harm
those who do not understand the use of it. A potential danger is described
(among other sources) here: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/.
Though I do agree that the ecommerce application is only 1 of many potential
uses of the OFBiz framework, i still disagree that it means that we can use
303 responses lightly. By setting a default value of 303 to all, we impose
it onto those who do not understand when it should be used, which are
probably most of the ofbiz users out there. The effects can be quite harmful
to them all...
Instead I would argue that the default response should be 301 in all cases
and instead of using 303 we should opt for other means to prevent double
posting - wherever we see the necessity...
--
View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Controllers-redirections-do-302-tp4633942p4638607.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Mmm, not so clear when I re-read myself. I think I will open a Jira to clarify all points. :D
Jacques
From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
> Don't misunderstand me Jacopo, from the start I suggested to add an option, the point 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
>
> In my mind of course it was an attribute to responses of resquest-redirect types. Which is annoying BTW for autocompletion.
> Because I'm don't think it's possible to differentiate the possible available other attributes when you fix the value of one. Else
> we would have to dynamically check if it's in a list. Anyway I guess I'm going to far...
>
> So be more clear (I thought it was obvious), you would have
> 0. a status-code attribute
> 1. [...] (url.properties as suggested by Adrian seems a better place)
>
> Hope I did not miss your point?
>
> Jacques
>
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> Jacques,
>>
>> what you are proposing here looks quite different from the ideas shared by Scott (that seemed a more flexible approach to me),
>> but I am going to let Scott comment on this.
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to
>>>
>>> 1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in general.properties (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz
>>> webapps in case
>>> 2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole controller. For instance you would want the 303 default for all
>>> webapps but eCommerce where you want all redirects being 302. We could even refine more and have a type in this specific
>>> element. or isntance use 302 only for url type and not simple redirects (to separate concerns about double-submit and SEO)
>>>
>>> So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best.
>>>
>>> I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO
>>>>> perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being
>>>>> introduced.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting (I called option 3, like the status-code attribute you
>>>> suggested)
>>>> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit issue. We use it in some place because it's an easy go
>>>> compared with Front End rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal)
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming them as such instead of using the response codes
>>>>> e.g. request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response element? It could be used for a number of things even
>>>>> outside of redirects.
>>>>
>>>> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did not think about use outside of redirects though, have you
>>>> any ideas yet?
>>>>
>>>> My plan would be:
>>>> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it should be yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301)
>>>> 2) Choose between
>>>> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent (we have also cross-redirect and
>>>> request-redirect-noparam)
>>>> b) a status-code attribute on the response element
>>>> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect response types
>>>>
>>>> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a choose between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code
>>>> response attribute
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, 302 and 303?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The difference between the two being that you shouldn't use
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>>
>>>>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/
>>>>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which should not happen (You will have still the bots
>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>> initial link referenced)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, right?
>>>>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not good for SEO and eCommerce
>>>>>> I Googled for "303 seo"
>>>>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/
>>>>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/
>>>>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue
>>>>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at bottom
>>>>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your
>>>>>> seo."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form and mostly backend side (maybe keeping
>>>>>> request-redirect-303
>>>>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all others redirect response types :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our current OOTB situation, at
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read
>>>>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> thus be recorded in logs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am
>>>>>>> aware) are
>>>>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633
>>>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132
>>>>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on
>>>>>>>>> HTTP 1.0
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do you have an example of where a 301 redirect would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call
>>>>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302
>>>>>>>>>>>> redirections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To keep short:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect
>>>>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google for "301 vs 302")
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an intranet, but for eCommerce it matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Don't misunderstand me Jacopo, from the start I suggested to add an option, the point 3
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
In my mind of course it was an attribute to responses of resquest-redirect types. Which is annoying BTW for autocompletion. Because
I'm don't think it's possible to differentiate the possible available other attributes when you fix the value of one. Else we would
have to dynamically check if it's in a list. Anyway I guess I'm going to far...
So be more clear (I thought it was obvious), you would have
0. a status-code attribute
1. [...] (url.properties as suggested by Adrian seems a better place)
Hope I did not miss your point?
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Jacques,
>
> what you are proposing here looks quite different from the ideas shared by Scott (that seemed a more flexible approach to me), but
> I am going to let Scott comment on this.
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to
>>
>> 1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in general.properties (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz
>> webapps in case
>> 2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole controller. For instance you would want the 303 default for all
>> webapps but eCommerce where you want all redirects being 302. We could even refine more and have a type in this specific element.
>> or isntance use 302 only for url type and not simple redirects (to separate concerns about double-submit and SEO)
>>
>> So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best.
>>
>> I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO
>>>> perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being
>>>> introduced.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting (I called option 3, like the status-code attribute you
>>> suggested)
>>> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit issue. We use it in some place because it's an easy go
>>> compared with Front End rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal)
>>>
>>>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming them as such instead of using the response codes
>>>> e.g. request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response element? It could be used for a number of things even
>>>> outside of redirects.
>>>
>>> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did not think about use outside of redirects though, have you any
>>> ideas yet?
>>>
>>> My plan would be:
>>> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it should be yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301)
>>> 2) Choose between
>>> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent (we have also cross-redirect and request-redirect-noparam)
>>> b) a status-code attribute on the response element
>>> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect response types
>>>
>>> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a choose between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code
>>> response attribute
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, 302 and 303?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The difference between the two being that you shouldn't use
>>>>> the
>>>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>>
>>>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/
>>>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which should not happen (You will have still the bots
>>>>> keeping the
>>>>> initial link referenced)
>>>>>
>>>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, right?
>>>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not good for SEO and eCommerce
>>>>> I Googled for "303 seo"
>>>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/
>>>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/
>>>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue
>>>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at bottom
>>>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your
>>>>> seo."
>>>>>
>>>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form and mostly backend side (maybe keeping
>>>>> request-redirect-303
>>>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections
>>>>> without
>>>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all others redirect response types :/
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our current OOTB situation, at
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read
>>>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters
>>>>> and
>>>>> thus be recorded in logs."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware)
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633
>>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132
>>>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP
>>>>>>>> 1.0
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do you have an example of where a 301 redirect would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call
>>>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302
>>>>>>>>>>> redirections.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To keep short:
>>>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect
>>>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google for "301 vs 302")
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an intranet, but for eCommerce it matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be
>>>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Re: Controllers redirections do 302
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Jacques,
what you are proposing here looks quite different from the ideas shared by Scott (that seemed a more flexible approach to me), but I am going to let Scott comment on this.
Jacopo
On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I will hopefully soon work on that. My last ideas are to
>
> 1. Use 303 has default being defined with a property in general.properties (or widget.properties?) to override for all OFBiz webapps in case
> 2. Add an element in controller to be able to override in a sole controller. For instance you would want the 303 default for all webapps but eCommerce where you want all redirects being 302. We could even refine more and have a type in this specific element. or isntance use 302 only for url type and not simple redirects (to separate concerns about double-submit and SEO)
>
> So everybosdy will be able to use it the way it suits him/her best.
>
> I don't think a Jira is needed, else please say it know
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacques Le Roux" <ja...@les7arts.com>
>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken crawlers don't follow post urls, they only follow links so I doubt it would really matter from an SEO perspective what code we used when doing a post redirect. I really only commented to avoid a blanket change to 301 being introduced.
>>
>> Thanks for your answer, I tend to lean more on a configurable setting (I called option 3, like the status-code attribute you suggested)
>> Obviously the url response type is not related to the double submit issue. We use it in some place because it's an easy go compared with Front End rewrite rules (external to OFBIz) or even Tuckey (internal)
>>
>>> If you want to be able to do a permanent redirect then I'd consider naming them as such instead of using the response codes e.g. request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent.
>>>
>>> Maybe an option is to allow a status-code attribute on the response element? It could be used for a number of things even outside of redirects.
>>
>> Yes those were the alternatives I was spkeaking about below. I did not think about use outside of redirects though, have you any ideas yet?
>>
>> My plan would be:
>> 1) Change the default because 302 is horrible. Not sure what it should be yet, 303 seems the least problematic (over 301)
>> 2) Choose between
>> a) "harcoded" names like request-redirect-permanent or url-permanent (we have also cross-redirect and request-redirect-noparam)
>> b) a status-code attribute on the response element
>> i) See if there are other uses for status-code than redirect response types
>>
>> So we still need to investigate for the default value and make a choose between a lot of type of redirect and a new status-code response attribute
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:03 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suggested initially to use the more open 3rd option, we could use 301, 302 and 303?
>>>>
>>>> For the difference between 301 vs 307 I think we can agree on : <<The difference between the two being that you shouldn't use the
>>>> 307 as it is not understood by many agents. (simple ehy )>>
>>>> http://jesperastrom.com/seo/different-variations-of-redirects-301-302-303-304-etc/
>>>> For 302, I don't see any needs, apart in case of temporary errors which should not happen (You will have still the bots keeping the
>>>> initial link referenced)
>>>>
>>>> What I did not talk about is the default, so you would suggest to use 303, right?
>>>> The problem is most people will never notice it and it seems 303 is not good for SEO and eCommerce
>>>> I Googled for "303 seo"
>>>> 1st answers: http://sharkseo.com/nohat/303-redirects-seo/
>>>> http://www.marketingchip.com/seo-experiments/how-does-a-303-redirect-affect-seo/
>>>> But found also answers saying it was not much an issue
>>>> like at http://www.seomoz.org/q/usage-of-http-status-code-303 , I read at bottom
>>>> "however technically if there are no inbound links pointing to the pages that you want to 303 redirect, it will not hurt your seo."
>>>>
>>>> At some point I thought we could introduce request-redirect-303 for form and mostly backend side (maybe keeping request-redirect-303
>>>> named request-redirect for the sake of simplicity) and request-redirect-301 for eCommerce when you need to do redirections without
>>>> fearing double submits. But then we would have to also duplicate all others redirect response types :/
>>>>
>>>> I'm now perplexed and need more time to check about this sentence and our current OOTB situation, at
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get I read
>>>> "However, HTTP 301 may be preferred in cases where it is not desirable for POST parameters to be converted to GET parameters and
>>>> thus be recorded in logs."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the long post, seems that we need to get into details
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>> Right, so they recommend using 301 for a permanent redirect but like I said, the bulk of our redirects (as far as I am aware) are
>>>>> used for Post Redirects which 301 isn't appropriate for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 2:15 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=93633
>>>>>> http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132
>>>>>> http://searchengineland.com/images/301-302-explained.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Scott Gray" <sc...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>>>>>>> I think most of our redirects OOTB are used as a Post/Redirect/Get pattern for which 303 is best on HTTP 1.1 or 302 on HTTP 1.0
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post/Redirect/Get
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a reference for your SEO best practices? Or alternatively do you have an example of where a 301 redirect would be
>>>>>>> more appropriate in the ecommerce app?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 8:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the easiest way to go, so I'm not against, no other opinions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Adrian Crum" <ad...@sandglass-software.com>
>>>>>>>>> A 301 permanent replacement makes sense to me.
>>>>>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2012 8:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since all redirect response types (url, cross-redirect, request-redirect, request-redirect-noparam) call
>>>>>>>>>> HttpServletResponse.sendRedirect() through RequestHandler.callRedirect(), all controllers redirections do 302 redirections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#3xx_Redirection
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To keep short:
>>>>>>>>>> 301: permanent redirect
>>>>>>>>>> 302: temporary redirect
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SEO best practices recommend to use 301 instead of 302 (just Google for "301 vs 302")
>>>>>>>>>> Of course this does not matter much for an ERP only used in an intranet, but for eCommerce it matters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have 3 solutions at hand:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Keep as is (ie continue with a 302 redirect)
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Permanently replace the 302 redirect by a 301
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Offer an option between the 2 (or even others if we want, like 307).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we choice 3, what name would you pick for this option ("redirect-type", between {"301","302"}?). Then it would not have
>>>>>>>>>> any sense for non redirect response types, maybe a reason to prefer option 2. Though a temporary redirect could still be
>>>>>>>>>> useful in case of redirection on error, hence my preference for 3...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>