We have moved to GitHub Issues
Created by Sebastiaan Janssen 19 Sep 2012, 10:17:38 Updated by Stephan 16 Apr 2013, 15:08:02
Right now it just gives a 200 and serves the page.. on different URLs, which search engines will punish.
I thought that was the purpose of umbracoUrlAlias, to accept an alternative url for a node -- not to act as a 301-redirect feature. We probably need two different things here?
I agree with Stephan; this is not the intended behavior. You can easily do your own Canonical redirect for a page by comparing its own NiceUrl with the current request and redirecting as necessary.
It's the umbracoRedirect property that should do the 301 redirect (I think it currently does a 302).
Come to think of it, we probably need a umbracoPermanentRedirect property (because people may be relying on umbracoRedirect giving a 302) but we don't really want to introduce more magic properties.
I was working on a "umbracoUrlAliasDoesRedirect" but I'm not sure we want it anymore. It's going to be confusing and as @casey says, alias is alias... So instead I'd propose we go with:
But then we're introducing more magic properties... @sebastiaan, what's the take on this? Is there an issue with magic properties?
Well, there are: umbracoUrlAlias is just a text string so it's never cleaned up as aliases should be, and you can enter a totally invalid url there. But, more generally: do we accept magic properties? Or is there a push against them?
@Stephan There's work being done on slowly rolling a 301 redirect package into Umbraco, indeed I don't think we should have any more magic properties cluttering up the codebase. So, for now, people can use existing packages and url rewriting, in the future we'll have this built in.
I'm closing this request accordingly.
Great. Who's working on that 301 thing? Would be happy to chat 'cos there are a few decisions I'm making at pipeline level that could really help them, but I'd appreciate their input.
Lee Messenger and Stefan Kip (@yodasmydad / @kipusoep)
@Stephan: Isn't that umbracoTempRedirect should return 302, and umbracoPermRedirect should return 301? 301 ia permanent
@Bo: these would be new properties, right? But I'm not sure we want to add more of them. Rather use a 301-rewriting package.
Type: Feature (request)
Difficulty: Very Easy
Backwards Compatible: True
Due in version: