The point is moot anyway. No search engine is going to help you much if you are on a page that has a link that points to a non-existent page. Or image files that are missing. Or a million other things that can be out of place.
Right. Which is why I was referring specifically to cases of mistyped addresses.
2008?
I’m still trying to catch up with 1980s slang.
I would like to see a four-cell implementation that makes this distinction.
Also, DBaJ.
Even in the case of 402, some may be impeded by 405’s. BTW, this whole interlude ought to be 450.
After reading that, I really want to implement a URL where the server returns a 418.
I think it was a 405 / 502.
Of course, my last girlfriend returned a 424. 
Once every 4 weeks or so, my girlfriend gives me a 503…
I type short url’s like ebay.com, amazon.com etc. It’s quicker than searching my bookmarks. boards.straightdope.com is a little long, but I type that too. 
I’ve run into a 417 or two.
'92 sounds about right. W3C claims '91 for the basic protocol, '92 for the error code system - and they should know. The basic HTTP protocol was definitely alive and prospering in '93, though the earliest “official standard” I can find (RFC 1945 - HTTP 1.0) was published in '96 - which was the time some of my fellow students were already making money making commercial websites.
As in, from a girlfriend, or from a webserver?
Thought I’d skip this point, but I got mad again.
You’d think that a Charter Member’s 15,090th post would be more civil.
Who, me? Straight woman, so that would be from a boyfriend.
Is it just me, or is the whole set of status messages filled with innuendo?
(The standards committee must have been a horny bunch)
449 -> Get it sometimes.
Ooh and 502 sounds really kinky.
People thinking like this leads to trainwrecks like this one.
In short: A lot of people used Google to get to Facebook by just blindly clicking the first link when they searched for Facebook. This news article was moved to the top spot. A lot of people got really confused when they couldn’t log in to Facebook on a site that is in no way connected to Facebook and doesn’t even look like Facebook.
As a result, the comments section is absolute schadenfreude gold.
That was very funny.
Then, it made me wonder something. How much money does Google make from people that go to websites by searching for the term and then clicking on the sponsored link to get to a web page they were going to go to anyway?
Broadly: it depends on how many people are interested in paying for those specific clicks. Which depends on how many people actually click on those links.