If you’ve checked in on the Exchange team blog in the past week, you’ve noticed the team decided to do something quite … well, let’s leave it at “confusing.” In case you haven’t read it, allow me to elaborate. Last week, the Exchange team updated TechNet URLs so that if you’ve bookmarked an Exchange 2010 article, clicking it it now brings you to the Exchange 2013 article on the same topic.
It’s obvious that the team put a lot of thought into this, but also that they knew there would be backlash from the Exchange community. Thus, there is documentation on the EHLO blog displaying how to navigate back to the specific Exchange 2010 article, if that’s what you’re looking for. And let’s face it, you probably were if you not only clicked the link, but also had it bookmarked!
There is also a navigation tree on the left-hand side of the screen that links the reader to documentation for other versions of Exchange.
Still, with all these “do-good” amendments, the community is not happy. A quick look at the comments section reveals more than a few angry readers.
- “Why are you updating and removing critical information used to support your customers when the vast majority [is] not on 2013 yet?”
And my personal favorite, which includes just a touch of sarcasm:
- “This makes perfectly good sense. After all, we have all replaced our 2010 environments with [Exchange] 2013, so why would we have any need for articles on Exchange 2010? I’m surprised Microsoft is even keeping the 2010 articles around, since we obviously have no use for them any longer.”
Personally, I wanted to echo Tony Redmond’s sentiment. Not only is this change bad for admins and the like who have bookmarked said links, but it also really hurts sites and blogs like both of ours.
Plenty of my contributors include TechNet links in their articles. Also, I have hyperlinked to TechNet in news stories, tips and guides more times than I can even begin to count. Now, if a reader is looking for more info on a topic and we’ve linked to TechNet, they will be brought to the wrong article; one that does not apply to what they’re reading.
I’m sure the team has its reasons for making this change, including several that I’m sure many have not thought about. That said, when I think about the time I, my contributors, and like-minded folks have put into researching and implementing these links, it’s very disappointing that our work is suddenly for naught.
Can we please go back to the way things were?
Matt Gervais - Site Editor, SearchExchange.com