Blog Post

Exchange Team Blog
2 MIN READ

Update: Exchange Server TechNet Library URLs

The_Exchange_Team's avatar
The_Exchange_Team
Platinum Contributor
Feb 19, 2013

Many of you have seen our previous blog post announcing the Exchange documentation URL changes, and have provided us with your feedback on the matter. Starting off, we want to thank you for all of it; we learned quite a bit from it, and we think it’s fantastic that we have such passionate and vocal community.

First, a little bit of history. How did we get here?

As an enterprise product with a long lifecycle, product documentation for multiple Exchange versions is published on TechNet. If you look at Exchange documentation library, you will find content for Exchange Server 2013, Exchange Server 2010, Exchange Server 2007 and Exchange Server 2003.

Exchange Server TechNet Library navigation

As part of our content publishing process, we have historically used version-less URLs (URLs with no version info) that point to the most recent version of a topic. This has been our practice for both our IT Pro and Developer documentation for multiple releases of Exchange. Interestingly, we didn’t get any negative feedback, or really any feedback at all the previous time we made this switch, when we moved from Exchange 2007 to Exchange 2010.

One could speculate as to why the previous switch wasn’t painful, but this one was, but the main point is — this last switch was.

Where do we go from here?

Taking all of the feedback we received into consideration, and based upon upcoming documentation publishing milestones, we have decided on the following course of action to prevent this sort of pain from happening with future product releases (the changes are not live yet, but will be starting tomorrow):

- Bad news first: we will not be switching the documentation URLs back to where they were pre-November 2012. While this was a painful decision, we do not want to increase the pain more by doing another switch after 3 months.

- Looking forward, we will make it so that all of our documentation exposes the version information in the URL. So, for Exchange 2010, that would mean that you will see (EXCHG.141) as part of the URL, and for Exchange 2013 you’ll see (EXCHG.150). These are the URLs that will be used in the navigation elements on TechNet and in links in the content. Version-less URLs will still point to the latest version of the specific article. However, as version-specific URLs will be available (and visible when you browse our documentation) for everything, we expect that the use of version-less URLs will decrease over time. In other words, any Library topics you link to (by copying from your browser's address bar) will have the version identifier.

We are hoping that this course of action will provide the right balance of what a set of our customers want and our ability to still optimize discoverability of content across multiple product versions.

Exchange Documentation Team

Updated Jul 01, 2019
Version 2.0

46 Comments

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    So... our links are still broken...

    Thanks Microsoft... thanks...

    *sarcasm*

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    @Thomas: The 14x and 15x reflect internal version numbers. Thanks for the feedback - it'll be a consideration as URL formats are reviewed.

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    Why 150, 141? why not 2013, 2010, 2007, etc? You know, numbers that mean something to anyone remotely familiar with Exchange.

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    @What a mess: Typing in the version identifier is one of the ways. As stated in the post, you can also use the "Other versions" control, use the navigation links, use search engines, etc.

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    It took you over 3 months to come back to us with a "we will not be switching the documentation URLs back"? This news is terrible! PLEASE switch the damn URLs BACK!!! Typing in "(EXCHG.141)" is a complete joke. You've blown it again.

  • Anonymous's avatar
    Anonymous

    Is the memory at Microsoft so short? Really?

    There were complaints going from 2007 to 2010.

    There were also complaints when you went from text-based URLs to GUID-based URLS, and when you went from GUID-based URLs to the current pseudo-random URLs. Just as now when there are complaints going from “pseudo-random” URLs to “pseudo-random URLs with version information”.

    Each time, you have promised us that “going forward” our URLs would be inviolate.

    Each time you have violated that promise. Stomped it into tiny pieces in the dirt.

    I have two books – that still sell over 50 copies a quarter each even against technologies a decade old – one against 2003 and one against 2007 – and all the URLs are invalid in those books. I have hundreds of blog postings where the URLs are invalid. I have hundreds of print magazine and online magazine articles where the URLs are invalid.

    This blog post does not represent a solution.

    It represents an admission that you don’t care. Get real. Be honest.

    It destroys your credibility to write things in this tone. Tell the truth. “We hear you, we aren’t willing to do anything but this.”