16 replies to this topic

[McFox]

I have a bit of a dilemma.

I am updating my website (again) and will have to redirect from a number of pages. Ideally, I would use .htaccess, which would make life really simple.

The problem is that the site is published using Frontpage which makes life much more complicated than it really should be because it uses .htaccess itself. This means configuring .htaccess is not an option, which leaves meta redirects as the only means of guiding visitors and spiders to the proper pages.

The dilemma: I can either just say, to hang with it, throw everything in the air and let the dust settle over time, or I can use meta redirects on every page that has been moved, renamed or made redundant.

Any suggestions?

McF

[qwerty]

If it's your only option, I'd say the meta redirect is ok as long as you put a sufficient delay on it (I think 5 seconds) so it doesn't look like you're trying to deceive anyone. I'd also replace the content on the old page with a short message like "The content on this page has been moved to [link to new URL]. Please update your bookmarks."

Then I guess the wise thing to do would be to wait until both the new page and the new content of the old page are indexed by both G and Y, then drop the old page.

BTW, if it's an FP site being hosted on an IIS server and you've got access to the management console, you can create 301's that way. But if you're saying that FP controls your .htaccess, I guess that's not the case, since IIS servers don't use .htaccess files.

[linux_lover]

Dont use Frontpage...

[Nathan Malone]

I agree, I don't like using frontpage or any WYSIWYG editors or anything like that. All of my sites are hand-coded with notepad but I guess that we all have our personal preferences. I just think that the code is a lot cleaner if done by hand...

[linux_lover]

I like charmi html edit TBH I use Dreamweaver cos I like the syntax highlighting, auto completer and the file manager bit... dont touch the graphical bit though and turn off code formating!

If it hadnt been bought for me though I would be using HTMLedit... similar features without the WYSISYG crap.

[qwerty]

I've recently started using HTML Kit for editing pages, but I still sometimes use FP to create completely new ones. But I don't let it stick in anything nasty.

[Googlewhacked]

McFox,

I'm with linux lover & Nathan here. There are plenty of viable, low-cost (even free) alternatives to FP. Check out HTML Kit (www.chami.com/html-kit/). It is free for personal use and even has a basic WYSIWYG editor (the Prototype Pad).

Phil

[linux_lover]

HTML kit that was it.... damb my vodka induced memory loss

[Marc]

I like charmi html edit TBH I use Dreamweaver cos I like the syntax highlighting, auto completer and the file manager bit... dont touch the graphical bit though and turn off code formating!

If it hadnt been bought for me though I would be using HTMLedit... similar features without the WYSISYG crap.

DreamWeaver covers a wide range of development types, it's my only studio now, I don't use the graphical part..I actually use Fireworks for layout mock-ups, slice the template and then code the rest using DreamWeaver. I'm lying...studios....

Fireworks
DreamWeaver
TopStyle

I'm getting off the original topic! sorry!

Meta redirects are safe to use.

Marc

[McFox]

I like using Frontpage I think it gets a bad press. After all, once you have spent several years learning all of its idiosyncracies, limits and the complex workarounds, it's a breeze to use.

The problem with Frontpage and .htaccess is that FP sprays the website with .htaccess files like confetti, and it does not like anyone tampering with them.

A 301 redirect would have been the easy answer! Meta redirects, without fear of incurring the algorithmic wrath, is probably my best bet.

Thanks!


McF

[torka]

After all, once you have spent several years learning all of its idiosyncracies, limits and the complex workarounds, it's a breeze to use.

--Torka

[Ron Carnell]

I like using Frontpage  I think it gets a bad press. After all, once you have spent several years learning all of its idiosyncracies, limits and the complex workarounds, it's a breeze to use.

FrontPage is fine, IMO. FrontPage Extensions, however, suck big time.

The FP Extensions are nothing more than Microsoft-supplied CGI that sit on the server and cooperate with the local client's copy of FP. If you add any of the more fancy stuff available in FP, like discussion forums or page counters, those features will be implemented in the FP Extensions. The Extensions are ALSO used to coordinate standard FrontPage publishing.

If you are not using any of that fancy stuff, you don't need the Extensions. Have your web provider disable them, then wait to see if anything breaks. If something breaks, replace the MS CGI functionality with more standard Perl or PHP scripts. Once the Extensions have been disabled there will be nothing on the server to mess with your .htaccess file. You will have all the advantages of using FP for design work, and very few of the disadvantages.

Of course, that also means you will no longer be able to "Publish" your site directly from FP to the server. New versions of FP have FTP available, but often the easiest and best solution is simply to Publish your site to a local drive. Instead of entering "http://domain.com" as the destination, put in "c:\domain" instead, and FP will publish accordingly. You can then use a standard FTP client to upload the results from c:\domain like all the rest of us do.

[DaveBeck]

It's funny how we tend to blame the software for this and that.... ultimately it all comes back to who is sitting in the driver's seat

[projectphp]

It's funny how we tend to blame the software for this and that.... ultimately it all comes back to who is sitting in the driver's seat

Unfortunately, in computer software, easier is often worse than forcing people to learn more. Most WYSIWYG editors are a case in point. In an attempt to not force users to learn HTML, they create very poor HTML for the user.

Really, if you need to spend any significaant time learning how to work software like dreamweaver, why not just learn how to generate the underlying code? A basic editor with FTP and/or SSH access and Robert is your Mother's brother.

That said, back to the question of the topic: use metaredirects, robots.txt ban crawling of the old pages, and then take them down eventually when they stop getting many hits. As long as you have 404 error handling, you are then covered in any eventuality long term, and short term nothing changes.

[Ron Carnell]

Unfortunately, in computer software, easier is often worse than forcing people to learn more. Most WYSIWYG editors are a case in point. In an attempt to not force users to learn HTML, they create very poor HTML for the user.

Really, if you need to spend any significaant time learning how to work software like dreamweaver, why not just learn how to generate the underlying code? A basic editor with FTP and/or SSH access and Robert is your Mother's brother.

That philosophy isn't limited to HTML, php.

Twenty years ago, I heard very similar arguments because C compilers just couldn't write machine language code nearly as well as human beings. Why bother to learn C when the same thing could always be done much better in assembler?

Turns out that C compilers kept getting better and better (though they never have and never will approach the level of hand coding). Turns out computers got faster and faster, so a little code bloat wasn't such a big deal any more. And, of course, it turns out that learning C (and a little structured programming) could increase a programmer's efficiency by a factor of ten or more. I haven't worked in assembler in over ten years and I don't personally know anyone who does. C compilers (and now C++ compilers) will never be best, but it turns out they are more than "good enough" for all but the most demanding projects.

Give the WYSIWYG programs a chance to evolve. The day will eventually arrive when hand-coders are as rare (and as relatively inefficient) as assembler coders. I can practically guarantee it.