Old website redirect

[clcoffey]

We are still getting questions about the old website as for some people it shows up in search results above our current website.

This causes confusion.

Can we set up a redirect from the old website to the new one so we don't lose any more traffic and users get the up to date information they need?

[clcoffey]

@voborgus @dicortazar @spier @mishari I remember having this conversation in one of the Marketing Calls however I can't remember what the solution and actions were from it.

Were you there? Do you remember the conversation? And if not, do you know what is involved in making the redirect?

[spier]

We are still getting questions about the old website as for some people it shows up in search results above our current website.

Can you share one specific example, so that we are clear about the problem we are trying to fix? Optimally even with a screenshot.

[clcoffey]

At the moment when you go to https://innersourcecommons.net/ you see the old site. This still shows up in google searches. The problem is that people find it instead of the new website when they look for InnerSource Commons.

Ideally, when someone lands on https://innersourcecommons.net/ they should be redirected to https://innersourcecommons.org/

[spier]

Ah I see.

In that case I would argue that instead of redirecting we could do either of these (or even both):

1. completely shut down https://innersourcecommons.net/
2. stop Google from indexing anything on https://innersourcecommons.net (don't know the exact mechanics of that but I am sure it is possible)

To decide what to do, we might go back to why we decided to keep https://innersourcecommons.net around when we launched the new site. My understanding is that we only kept it so that we could easily check if we forgot to port something essential to the new site (https://innersourcecommons.org).

Not sure who can confirm this assumption. Maybe @claredillon or @voborgus?

[mishari]

If we got rid of it entirely, we'd lose out on SEO. It's really easy to maintain the domain and use a 301 moved permanently so that all the links go to the new site. It will be just a single .htaccess file in the web host that does this.

[spier]

Personally I would happily "loose some SEO" in exchange for "less things to maintain", given that we are a group of volunteers who can only maintain very few things anyways.

But does anybody know what the .net domain was originally meant to be used for?
I know that it now hosts our old site, but what did it host prior to that relaunch?

[mishari]

But maintaining it is trivial, 5 lines of configuration. In fact I have it handy if need be 🙂

…

On Sat, 7 May 2022, 19:22 Sebastian Spier, ***@***.***> wrote: Personally I would happily "loose some SEO" in exchange for "less things to maintain", given that we are a group of volunteers who can only maintain very few things anyways. But does anybody know what the .net domain was originally meant to be used for? I know that it now hosts our old site, but what did it host prior to that relaunch? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#272 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD2Z2VXXIKAZJRUJLARPBLVIZOBLANCNFSM5VBVH67A> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>

[spier]

I know that the configuration isn't that hard :)
With maintenance I meant more than just the code change i.e. documenting how it works, making sure that current and new maintainers of our website know how it works etc.

But rather than focusing on the technical aspects of the change, I am trying to figure out what the business problem is and to some extend what it was in the past. i.e. why do we have .net in the first place and does that reason still hold true today?

[clcoffey]

I think @claredillon might have some context around this.

One reason we would like to keep it is for Archive purposes. It is good to have a history of InnerSource Commons at hand.

@mishari I like your solution. Is it something you would be able to implement if we decide to go ahead with it, or do you need additional access?

[mishari]

Another good reason is to prevent link rot, as ISC.net may be linked from books, blogs and other material people may come across. I may need additional access. When we decide we're going to go ahead with this, I can hop in and figure things out, no problem.

…

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:45 PM Cristina Coffey ***@***.***> wrote: I think @claredillon <https://github.com/claredillon> might have some context around this. One reason we would like to keep it is for Archive purposes. It is good to have a history of InnerSource Commons at hand. @mishari <https://github.com/mishari> I like your solution. Is it something you would be able to implement if we decide to go ahead with it, or do you need additional access? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#272 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD2Z2RW52LJ6UFDIKIIYTLVJDUGDANCNFSM5VBVH67A> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>