Talk:HTTP 301

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The page should contain the role 301 redirects in SEO as 301 redirects have a major role in SEO world. Kingnkv (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The example here is wrong, as it hints that a relative URI is returned in the Location header field, whereas the RFC states that this is an absoluteURI (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.30).

It should be:

301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.example.org/login.php

It would be nice to include practical information about current browsers. In my testing, IE6 and Firefox 3.57 currently treat HTTP 301 and HTTP 302 exactly the same. Any request for a URL which previously resulted in an HTTP 301 is still sent to the server and a new HTTP 301 is received. Chrome 3.0 threats HTTP 301 differently and will cache the URLs and redirect (on the client, without a server call) subsequent requests for the same URL to the moved location. But even in Chrome this "permanent" redirection only lasts for the current browser instance. As soon as Chrome is closed and reopened a subsequent request will still be sent to the server.

I believe I've read, but have not verified, that search engines will treat HTTP 301 responses appropriately.

Samuelrndc (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced the example is a good one. The 301 status code is a permanent redirection, which is not adequate for redirecting to a login page. 212.202.168.87 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it also struck me... 95.49.87.3 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and similar URL-shorteners could be mentioned. --Helium4 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article on URL shorteners. They are not a central element of this 301 article. Jmccormac (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TᴀʀᴏEɴᴛᴇʀᴘʀɪsᴇs™ 58.8.180.111 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]