Links with %2A in them are incorrectly reported as 301 redirects

[videochums]

Whenever a link is checked that contains %2A, the checker appears to convert that to a * then reports a 301 redirect even if the URL with %2A in it actually results in a 200 response.

Example: https://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fvideochums.com%2Freview%2Fgal-gun-double-peace

In the above tested page, the link in the source code is https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%2AGun%3A+Double+Peace/ which warrants a 200 response. However, the tool thinks that the link is https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal*Gun%3A+Double+Peace/ which 301 redirects.

[dontcallmedom]

in a URL, %2A is the URI-syntax escape equivalent of *. Since * is not a reserved character in the URI syntax, the linkchecker replaces the escaped value with *. The strange thing here is the server on esrb.org redirecting '*' to '%2A' - I don't think this is a bug in the checker.

[videochums]

in a URL, %2A is the URI-syntax escape equivalent of *. Since * is not a reserved character in the URI syntax, the linkchecker replaces the escaped value with *. The strange thing here is the server on esrb.org redirecting '*' to '%2A' - I don't think this is a bug in the checker.

Hello. It is a bug in the checker because the link to esrb has %2A in it and the checker is incorrectly converting it to * then detecting a redirect to %2A.

To be clear, the URL in the source website is:
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%2AGun%3A+Double+Peace/
This directly links without redirect to:
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%2AGun%3A+Double+Peace/ (the exact same URL)

However, the checker thinks that the source website has the link of:
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal*Gun%3A+Double+Peace/ (which is completely incorrect and causes a redirect)

[dontcallmedom]

again, in a URL, %2A and * are one and the same. For instance, if you go to https://videochums.com/review/gal-gun-double-peace and hover over the said link, you'll in your browser status bar the link appear with * in it, even if the HTML markup uses %2A.

[videochums]

again, in a URL, %2A and * are one and the same. For instance, if you go to https://videochums.com/review/gal-gun-double-peace and hover over the said link, you'll in your browser status bar the link appear with * in it, even if the HTML markup uses %2A.

I understand that but the link checker is still erroneous in that it's reporting a 200 response as a 301 redirect.

[dontcallmedom]

Sorry I should have been clearer - if you want to avoid the 301, you need to double-escape "%2A" in your link, that is use "%252A" where you're currently using "%2A" (%25 being interpreted a "%").

What happens right now is:
you link to "*-foo", but the page is really at "%2A-foo", so the server redirects you from here to there. To hit "%2A-foo" directly, you need to percent-escape that name, which leads to "%252A-foo".

Hopes this is clearer.

[videochums]

Sorry I should have been clearer - if you want to avoid the 301, you need to double-escape "%2A" in your link, that is use "%252A" where you're currently using "%2A" (%25 being interpreted a "%").

What happens right now is:
you link to "*-foo", but the page is really at "%2A-foo", so the server redirects you from here to there. To hit "%2A-foo" directly, you need to percent-escape that name, which leads to "%252A-foo".

Hopes this is clearer.

Thanks for the suggestion. I changed it to https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%252AGun%3A+Double+Peace/ and it's doing a 301 redirect and the link checker is reporting a 301 redirect.

So, I'm going to change it back to what it was which gave a 200 response while the link checker reports a 301 response which is a bug.

[videochums]

Just to be clear - all of these are reported as 301 redirects using the link checker:

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal*Gun%3A+Double+Peace/
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%2AGun%3A+Double+Peace/
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34456/Gal%252AGun%3A+Double+Peace/

So, no matter what I change it to, the link checker reports a 301 redirect.

Also, the 2nd URL is displayed as the 1st URL in the checker results.

I'm going to stick with the 2nd URL because that results in a 200 response. Hopefully, the link checker can be updated to reflect that.