This is a graceful way to solve the problem in a way that is
essentially transparent to your users. While it won't do anything
like force their browser bookmarks to be updated, it will still
get them to the page they expect.
That's a bad practice since you'll need to keep doing this forever.
Better to encourage them to use (and rebookmark) the correct page
and reduce your server overhead.
I disagree. In the case of web sites, it's actually a good thing to
forward URLs (using a 301 redirect or even a simple page with an http-
refresh html meta tag) when site structures change. This keeps other
pages, scripts, etc. that link to the URL still able to link to your
content. While it's not as big a deal in the scenario of an internal
web site, it's far more crucial for sites on the Internet. The
overall goal of web design and hosting is to drive traffic to the
content. If structural changes break links from search engines and
other sites, there is the potential that there will be a loss of
traffic.
I imagine we've all felt frustration when we find that a link to some
crucial piece of information or article that's presented in search
results or on another site gives us a 404 error. It might be a bit
more work on the part of the server, but it's far easier to shift the
burden onto the hardware with a few Apache directives than to shift
it onto the users, designers, and programmers who then need to update
their bookmarks, sites, and software.
URL permanence is critical. Server side redirection provides the
easiest method of ensuring that as site structures change.
--
Jason Deraleau (email@hidden)
IT Professional (MCSE, ACTC, Linux+ SME)
