Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by ballenf on Monday July 20, 2020 @11:56AM (#23899074)

That's also a good reason for news orgs to have strict policies around never taking down articles or changing URLs. It happens enough to give cover to the behavior you cite.

News sites could also replace their 404 page with an explanation "there used to be an article here, but we decided to remove it because ____" or "there's never been an article at this address".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by btrettel on Monday July 20, 2020 @12:29PM (#23899401)

There's a HTTP status code for pages which were deleted: 410 Gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#4xx_...

This was famously used by Mark Pilgrim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim#%22Disappearance%...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by elliekelly on Monday July 20, 2020 @02:10PM (#23900373)

Has anyone ever seen this in the wild? I didn’t even know it existed. Who knew there were so many different status codes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by LukeShu on Monday July 20, 2020 @03:07PM (#23900878)

I'm sure I've seen 410 in the wild, but it's pretty uncommon. If you're keeping track of things well enough to know that there used to be a page there in order to serve a 410, you're probably keeping track of things well enough to be able to do something better, like redirect to an updated URL.

> Who knew there were so many different status codes.

As an HTTP nerd, the authoritative listing of the different codes is: https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

Note: Everything with a reference that's not RFC 7231 is an extension; don't use that status code unless you actually implement that extension. For example, don't use 401 (Unauthorized) instead of 403 (Forbidden) unless you actually implement the RFC 7235 Authentication extension.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by spc476 on Monday July 20, 2020 @05:10PM (#23901945)

I use it to mark pages that I have taken down for good [1]. I have also used 418 ("I'm a teapot") response code on my gopher server to discourage web bots from attempting to index the site.

Edit--added note

[1] For all the good it does. I just checked my logs and I still see requests for pages I marked as "gone" 15 years ago.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by tracker1 on Monday July 20, 2020 @03:44PM (#23901190)

I use it for APIs when an item gets marked as deleted, vs actually deleted... depends on the underlying data though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by btrettel on Monday July 20, 2020 @02:30PM (#23900537)

Seems that I edited my comment to add an example at the same time you posted yours.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious by irl_zebra on Monday July 20, 2020 @03:20PM (#23900973)

GitLab does it for links to deleted repos!

[ Parent | on HN ]