News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Testing 3 million hyperlinks, lessons learned by nulluk on Thursday June 07, 2012 @07:59AM (#4078515)
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 and whilst it's not polished it's by far the easiest & probably most automatic/maintainable solution I have found.

Re:Testing 3 million hyperlinks, lessons learned by fnulp on Thursday June 07, 2012 @08:15AM (#4078575)
"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 :)

Re:Testing 3 million hyperlinks, lessons learned by nulluk on Thursday June 07, 2012 @08:34AM (#4078652)
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
Re:Testing 3 million hyperlinks, lessons learned by underwater on Friday June 08, 2012 @01:16AM (#4082793)
FYI: the word you wanted is "albeit".