Opinions Wanted: Closed Bug Causing Syndicators to use ugly post urls

Sep 28, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Hi all,

I wanted to see whether I'm alone in thinking this bug is wrongfully closed:

http://www.codeplex.com/blogengine/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=3492

Currently we're ommitting isPermaLink from the guid element in our feeds, which basically says to anyone parsing it "you can use this as the post URL" - but it's not the nice slug you've assigned the post, oh no. It's post.aspx?id={nice-long-guid-that-looks-awful}

My suggestion is to just use the guid instead of the url and set isPermaLink=false. That means anyone parsing our feed will correctly use our post slug instead. This is obviously an advantage.

However, it's been closed with no real explanation or an advantage to doing it the way it is. Have I missed something or is this a bad decision?
Sep 29, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Well a few things:
1. Even though Feedburner does do as you describe, it isn't a huge issue as it immediately redirects to your pretty URL.
2. Probably a better way to word your rebuttal then this post.
3. I agree with you.
3a. Download the code and change it if you are that worried about it.
Coordinator
Sep 29, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I don't get the problem. If you look at my feedburner feed http://feeds.feedburner.com/netslave which uses the newest source code, you will see that all the item links point to some obscure feedburner address that is then redirected. It doesn't matter if it uses permalinks or slugs since it is transformed to the feedburner link.

If you open the feed directly http://blog.madskristensen.dk/syndication.axd then you'll see that it does infact use the SLUG for links.
Sep 29, 2007 at 10:29 AM

ckincincy wrote:
Well a few things:
1. Even though Feedburner does do as you describe, it isn't a huge issue as it immediately redirects to your pretty URL.
2. Probably a better way to word your rebuttal then this post.
3. I agree with you.
3a. Download the code and change it if you are that worried about it.


1. It uses a 302 redirect insteadof 301 (I change this myself and I did ask in another issue to fix this). Also it looks nasty appearing on other sites - we have a slug to use!
3. That's what I what I'm after :-)
3a. I do, but unless there's a reason to have it this way it'd make sense for everyone to benefit from the "fix" :)


madskristensen wrote:
I don't get the problem. If you look at my feedburner feed http://feeds.feedburner.com/netslave which uses the newest source code, you will see that all the item links point to some obscure feedburner address that is then redirected. It doesn't matter if it uses permalinks or slugs since it is transformed to the feedburner link.

If you open the feed directly http://blog.madskristensen.dk/syndication.axd then you'll see that it does infact use the SLUG for links.


It's some of the addons that use it (BuzzBoost?). And they won't be the only ones - by ommitting isPermaLink=false we're telling them this IS the permalink for this page, which isn't really what we want.

The redirect you get is probably because you have the stats turned on.
Coordinator
Sep 29, 2007 at 10:41 AM
I will change it to a 301 redirection
Sep 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM


madskristensen wrote:
I will change it to a 301 redirection

That helps, but I still don't see the point in deliberately telling anything parsing our feed they can use the guid version as the url if there's nothing to gain.

I'm not trying to be stubborn - if there's a reason or advantage to doing it way fine, but currently it just looks like we're doing it needlessly :(
Coordinator
Sep 29, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I also want to get this perfect and you may be right. The thing is that it's up to Oppositional to decide right now. I have no time to investigate this myself, because I'm extremely busy getting the last pieces done so we can release tomorrow. If we find out that you where right all along, then I can only say I'm sorry and we will change it for the 1.3 release. I don't think you're trying to be stubborn, you just want the best and so do I.

I hope you understand.
Sep 29, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I do understand :D

I was hoping that someone here might know why Oppositional wants to do it the current way (or he'd come post) so at least I'd know there was a reason :(

Ah well, I've put my comments forward, it's up to you guys to make the decisions, I'll leave it in your hands for now!
Coordinator
Sep 29, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Oppositinal has worked several years building syndication frameworks and I trust his opinion in this matter. If I know you just a little my guess would be that you can change this little thing in your own implementation easily :)
Oct 4, 2007 at 5:57 PM
I found a fairly major bug that's caused my visitors to randomly get all my rss posts again in their feedreader. If my suggestion had been implemented, it would never have happened :(

I'm annoyed that Oppositional still hasn't given any reason not to change it :(

Here's the bug report:

http://www.codeplex.com/blogengine/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=3631