5 ms·

I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content and if someone wants to be malicio

by nulluk 14y ago

I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content and if someone wants to be malicious they can create a bunch of fake urls that essentially point to the same page, or even worse if they receive enough links they can be indexed at the new "fake" url. A similar thing happened to a newspapers website but I can't recall who of the top of my head. Another potential solution & my preferred method is whenever a change is made that would affect the url of a page. Update a "legacy" table with the old url and the location of the new url, next time a 404 is going to be thrown do a search against the database & redirect accordingly if a new url is found. I rolled this approach into https://github.com/leonsmith/django-legacy-url https://github.com/leonsmith/django-legacy-url and whilst it's not polished it's by far the easiest & probably most automatic/maintainable solution I have found.

fnulp 14y ago
"I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content" Not if you properly generate and apply canonical links :)
- nulluk 14y ago
  canonical links are only hints to google (all be it very strong) they always reserve the right to ignore it if they think a webmaster is shooting themselves in the foot, that in itself is where the problem is. If I built up a few hundred links to example.com/1234-this-site-sucks I'm sure google would think that is the correct url rather than the canonical link version of example.com/1234-the-real-slug
  - fnulp 14y ago
    Yeah, and? That still doesn't mean Google et al. think you have, and penalizes you for, "duplicate content". I cut off the quote after that for a reason -- you totally lost me on the "malicious" stuff. Google bombs? People still care about those, really? I say you're wasting resources on fighting non-problem, hence creating a problem ^^
  - underwater 14y ago
    FYI: the word you wanted is "albeit".

by nulluk 14y ago

fnulp 14y ago

"I wouldn't recommend having the "pretty" part not validated. It can cause some serious issues with google & duplicate content" Not if you properly generate and apply canonical links :)

nulluk 14y ago
canonical links are only hints to google (all be it very strong) they always reserve the right to ignore it if they think a webmaster is shooting themselves in the foot, that in itself is where the problem is. If I built up a few hundred links to example.com/1234-this-site-sucks I'm sure google would think that is the correct url rather than the canonical link version of example.com/1234-the-real-slug
- fnulp 14y ago
  Yeah, and? That still doesn't mean Google et al. think you have, and penalizes you for, "duplicate content". I cut off the quote after that for a reason -- you totally lost me on the "malicious" stuff. Google bombs? People still care about those, really? I say you're wasting resources on fighting non-problem, hence creating a problem ^^
- underwater 14y ago
  FYI: the word you wanted is "albeit".