# Could we lose the extra "forum" sub-directory?



## mmadsen (Jun 29, 2008)

I've noticed that all the URLs for the forums follow the same pattern as before, but with an additional "forum" sub-directory.  Can we lose the extra sub-directory, so that the new URLs match the old?


----------



## Mark (Jun 29, 2008)

Yup.  If not, all of the links people have made over the (6 or 7?) years in their sigs and offsite directing people to specific threads become obsolete.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 29, 2008)

I wouldn't say they are obsolete, they just need /forum added in to the URL.  I know some people have fifty or sixty threads as links, but that's just part of the price that comes with doing that.  At least it's a relatively simple insertion, and not a completely new URL.


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 29, 2008)

No.

Reason - I don't want vbulletin code mixed with PAM code and pages.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2008)

Michael Morris said:


> No.
> 
> Reason - I don't want vbulletin code mixed with PAM code and pages.




Is there any way we can fake it with some kind of redirect, Mike?


----------



## Michael Morris (Jun 30, 2008)

Yes, I can silently redirect. I'll set something up tomorrow.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 30, 2008)

Michael Morris said:


> Yes, I can silently redirect. I'll set something up tomorrow.




Super!


----------



## drothgery (Jun 30, 2008)

Mark said:


> Yup.  If not, all of the links people have made over the (6 or 7?) years in their sigs and offsite directing people to specific threads become obsolete.




FYI, links created via the [ post ] and [ thread ] tags ported over without issues.


----------



## Graf (Jun 30, 2008)

(two happy big smiles become little 'd's...)

Anyway I'm more happy about the silent redirect than the system will allow me to be.


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2008)

drothgery said:


> FYI, links created via the [ post ] and [ thread ] tags ported over without issues.





We may not be talking about the same thing.  The additional "/forum" folder in the current configuration of the boards was causing old links to specific threads and posts without the "/forum" folder to not function as intended.


----------



## Mark (Jun 30, 2008)

Graf said:


> Anyway I'm more happy about the silent redirect than the system will allow me to be.





That will take care of the trouble. Thanks!


----------



## drothgery (Jul 1, 2008)

Mark said:


> We may not be talking about the same thing.  The additional "/forum" folder in the current configuration of the boards was causing old links to specific threads and posts without the "/forum" folder to not function as intended.




No, we are. The thing is that if you had written your link as [ post=PostNumber ] or [ thread=ThreadNumber ] instead of [ url=ThreadUrl ], then it would have ported over without any adjusting.


----------



## Mark (Jul 1, 2008)

drothgery said:


> No, we are. The thing is that if you had written your link as [ post=PostNumber ] or [ thread=ThreadNumber ] instead of [ url=ThreadUrl ], then it would have ported over without any adjusting.






I see.  Interesting.  Alas, the circumstances are as they are, we have six years of links, some good like yours and some not good like mine, but fortunately Michael has a fix for it.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Jul 2, 2008)

I've just gotten used to editing the url over the years... most of my links still point to enworld.cyberstreet.com   

what come on, that wasn't that long ago was it?


----------



## blargney the second (Jul 2, 2008)

Michael Morris said:


> Yes, I can silently redirect. I'll set something up tomorrow.




You are full of rawk!


----------



## Graf (Jul 3, 2008)

Yeah. The silent redirect is fantastic. Big time saver for those of us with lots of bookmarks and/or interlocking threads.

Much appreciated.


----------

