dougwilson
commented
8 years ago Hi @thestinger, it looks like I agree, 301 is a better code for the type of redirect that is being performed here. This module was extracted from the connect project, which is how it inherited the 303 code, for better or worse. I will absolutely merge this in with the 2.0 release!
The 303 error code isn't really appropriate for this use case. It should be either a 301 (permanent) or a 302 (temporary). Using either 302 or 303 means that search engines won't pass along ranking to the target so it's lost. It also prevents caching of the redirect, which is done for 301. The cache can be invalidated by redirecting back from the target so it's harmless.