Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   LordSlakyr, 9 May 2002 @ 10:38am

   
   

   Cheaper but problematic for linking

   Having worked for a now-defunct DotBomb portal, we used to publish thing under the same URL because it was cheaper and easier to update an existing content page than to create and maintain versions that are only minorly changed.

   It caused a problem, though. Sometimes we dramatically changed the content of a page to a totally different subject (which is not what the ./ article is discussing), and we got complaints from people who had bookmarked the page, or were referencing it with a link, and the previous content being referred to was no longer there. We decided that updates would retain the same URL, but significant changes needed to be "branched" and the former version of the page would still exist, though it may have not been linked into the main site any longer except through search.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Newsman, 10 May 2002 @ 12:55am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   Hang on and think about this a little. Newspapers bring out different editions and the news can change radically between them. News bulletins on wireless or television also change through the day. The only difference here is that it is "updating in place" as there is no time factor involved.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]