Search Results

Search found 82071 results on 3283 pages for 'file url'.

Page 129/3283 | < Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >

  • Wordpress subcatagory navigation with permalinks

    - by Towhid
    I used beautiful permalinks on my WP website but navigation in sub subcategories is not possible. for example these URLs are fine: http://technopolis.ir/category/articles/security-articles/ & http://technopolis.ir/category/articles/security-articles/page/2/ but this sub subcategory will generate 404 on 2nd page: http://technopolis.ir/category/articles/security-articles/backtrack/ [first page is fine] http://technopolis.ir/category/articles/security-articles/backtrack/page/2/ [404 error]

    Read the article

  • Include all php files in one file and include that file in every page if we're using hiphop?

    - by Hasan Khan
    I understand that in normal php if we're including a file we're merging the source of it in the script and it would take longer for that page to be parsed/processed but if we're using HipHop shouldn't it be ok to just create one single php file and include every file in it (that contains some class) and every page which needs those classes (in separate file each) can just include one single php file? Would this be ok in presence of HipHop?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use canonical tag in Blogger posts?

    - by John Sanjay
    I found one of my blog post was cached by Google (www.example.com/post.html). I found that comment page of the post was also cached (www.example.com/post.html?showComment=1372054729698). These two pages are showing in Google SERP when I checked cached posts of my blog. Is it possible to use canonical tag on the post www.example.com/post.html?showComment=1372054729698 so that Google won't penalize my original post? Is there any other ways to redirect a blog post?

    Read the article

  • Letting search engines know that different links to identical pages stress different parts of the page

    - by balpha
    When you follow a permalink to a chat message in the Stack Exchange chat, you get a view of the transcript page for the day that contains the particular message. This message is highlighted in yellow, and the page is scrolled to its position. Sometimes – admittedly rarely, but it happens – a web search will result in such a transcript link. Here's a (constructed, obviously) example: A Google search for strange behavior of the \bibliography command site:chat.stackexchange.com gives me a link to this chat message. This message is obiously unrelated to my query, but the transcript page does indeed contain my search terms – just in a totally different spot. Both the above links lead to the same content, and Google knows this, since both pages have <link rel="canonical" href="/transcript/41/2012/4/9/0-24" /> in their <head>. The only difference between the two links is Which message has the highlight css class?. Is there a way to let Google know that while all three links have the same content, they put an emphasis on a different part of the content? Note that the permalinks on the transcript page already have a #12345 hash to "point" to the relavant chat message, but Google appears to drop it.

    Read the article

  • Pagination for product listing, what to use? "canonical" or "rel-prev-next" or do nothing?

    - by Jayapal Chandran
    I want to make sure my product listing is 10 products per page which are not in a series (link). They have explained how to use canonical or rel prev for pagination when a long page has been divided into multiple page and the multiple pages becomes a series were as my condition is not that. They are unique listing which are not related to each listing... All the listing links leads to a product profile page. So lets say my site is all about cars and I have a Used Audi page with 1000 Audi's for sale. There are 10 used audi cars on each page so there's 100 pages in the series. If I start to utilise Rel="prev" and rel="next" should I set page 2 onwards as index,follow or noindex,follow? The content on Page 2 all the way to 100 only changes ever so slightly as different cars will be for sale on different pages but from a "Panda" point of view the pages are incredibly similar as they'd hold the same meta data as page 1 in the series along with duplicate reviews & news etc. I want Page 1 in the series as the Main page for Google to send users too and I don't see the point in Google indexing page 2 100. What's everyone's view on this? Lastly with the rel="canonical" tag should page 2 to 100 all point back to page 1 in the series or the individual page itself? E.G: /used-audi/page-3/.

    Read the article

  • Republishing blog posts on a popular website

    - by Giorgi
    I started my blog about programming yesterday and in order to promote and increase traffic I submitted my rss to Codeproject which pulls my posts and publishes them at Codeproject. While it increases the number of people reading my posts (but they are reading it at codeproject) I am worried that Google will penalize my site for duplicate content (Especially considering that Codeproject has much more reputation compared to my new website). The post at Codeproject has a link back to my blog post but it does not have "rel=canonical". So my question which one is better: a link from a high reputation website and some traffic or should I remove it from codeproject so that my blog is not penalized? What if codeproject adds "rel=canonical" to the link?

    Read the article

  • Canonical links for huge websites

    - by Florin
    Let's say I have 5 products that are identical but the product code, the product color specifications and the product image. The title, meta and description are identical (by the way the color is in a select form). I made 4 products link canonical to the 1 that is the master based on many factors. If the master becomes inactive or without a stock one product from the other 4 will become the new master and the rest will become canonical to it. The question is if that by becomeing master from canonical will the site suffer a penalty from Google or it will work just fine? What will Google think about this strategy?

    Read the article

  • Multisites Network SEO::Can self-referencing canonical tag(rel="canonical") inside article improve google rating?

    - by user5674576
    Hi, Can self-referencing canonical tag(rel="canonical") inside article improve google rating? The Case: Company have 40 sites with original content and 1 main site with some of 40 sites articles. Main site have rel="canonical" in each article Should article in original site have also rel="canonical" for self-referencing? example: inside main network site(reference to other site):<link href="http://site7.com/article25" rel="canonical" /> inside original network site(self-reference):<link href="http://site7.com/article25" rel="canonical"/> Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Reach Local Proxy Page - Duplicate content?

    - by Simon Bennett
    We have a client who has instructed Reach Local to manage their paid SEO work etc. RL have created a proxy version of the page at http://example-px.rtrk.co.uk which mirrors the existing site completely. Would I be correct in assuming that this would count as duplicate content and one or both of the sites would be penalized because of this? And would the addition of a rel="canonical" meta-tag on the proxy site assist with this? Many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Business not showing up on right hand side of google search

    - by Chris
    The business I work has currently has a verified business Google+ page and in the past this page has shown up as a thumbnail during Google searches. The thumbnail brings up basic information such as our picture and operating hours etc. However, since verifying the business page, the thumbnail overview of our business does not seem to show up anymore. I have tried Google searching our business on several computers and it still just brings up the normal search results. Is there a setting I need to activate in order for the thumbnail to appear? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is it ok for a canonical link to point to itself?

    - by Tom Gullen
    I've got the canonical: <link href="http://www.Site.com/Blog/how-to-know-when-this" rel="canonical" /> Is it ok if this is on the page it is pointing to? Also I'm putting it on all these pages: http://www.Site.com/Blog/how-to-know-when-this http://www.Site.com/Blog/how-to-know-when-this/ http://www.Site.com/Blog.aspx?ID=1 http://www.Site.com/Blog/how-to-know-when-this/?q= Is this correct useage?

    Read the article

  • Can see samba shares but not access them

    - by nitefrog
    For the life of me I cannot figure this one out. I have samba installed and set up on the ubuntu box and on the Win7 box I CAN SEE all the shares I created. I created two users on ubuntu that map to the users in windows. On ubuntu they are both admins, user A & B on Windows User A is admin and user B is poweruser. User A can see both shares and access them, but user B can see everythin, but only access the homes directory, the other directory throws an error. I have two drives in Ubuntu and this is the smb.config file (I am new to samba): [global] workgroup = WORKGROUP server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu) wins support = no dns proxy = yes name resolve order = lmhosts host wins bcast log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m max log size = 1000 syslog = 0 panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d security = user encrypt passwords = true passdb backend = tdbsam obey pam restrictions = yes unix password sync = yes passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . pam password change = yes map to guest = bad user ; usershare max shares = 100 usershare allow guests = yes And here is the share section: Both user A & B can access this from windows. No problems. [homes] comment = Home Directories browseable = no writable = yes Both User A & B can see this share, but only user A can access it. User B get an error thrown. [stuff] comment = Unixmen File Server path = /media/data/appinstall/ browseable = yes ;writable = no read only = yes hosts allow = The permission for the media/data/appinstall/ is as follows: appInstall properties: share name: stuff Allow others to create and delete files in this folder is cheeked Guest access (for people without a user account) is checked permissions: Owner: user A Folder Access: Create and delete files File Access: --- Group: user A Folder Access: Create and delete files File Access: --- Others Folder Access: Create and delete files File Access: --- I am at a loss and need to get this work. Any ideas? The goal is to have a setup like this. 3 users on window machines. Each user on the data drive will have their own personal folder where they are the ones that can only access, then another folder where 2 of the users will have read only and one user full access. I had this setup before on windows, but after what happened I am NEVER going back to windows, so Unix here I am to stay! I am really stuck. I am running Ubuntu 11. I could reformat again and put on version 10 if that would make life easier. I have been dealing with this since Wed. 3pm. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • File Server Resource Manager attempting to access quota.xml on System Reserved partition?

    - by pmellett
    I've got a new install of Server 2008 R2 that is designed to be our quota server for user home directories and shared areas. I installed FSRM and set up a few quotas to try out. They worked fine but at some point over the weekend it's stopped loading the FSRM console quota screen and gives the following error, with Event ID 8228: File Server Resource Manager was unable to access the following file or volume: '\\?\Volume{73649de6-7f04-11e1-a344-005056b10310}\System Volume Information\SRM\quota.xml'. This file or volume might be locked by another application right now, or you might need to give Local System access to it. I have removed and reinstalled the FSRM Role Service, cleared the \System Volume Information\SRM folder on each volume and am at the verge of just starting again. I'd rather not since then I have to go through and set up all my NTFS permissions again. Since it looks like the service is trying to access the System Reserved partition, which I assume won't have any files it could possibly need, how do I remove System Reserved partition as a volume to be monitored for the quota service? (I am not aware of configuring that to be the case originally though!)

    Read the article

  • Alternative for Subdomains [duplicate]

    - by Raj
    This question already has an answer here: Should I choose sub-directories over sub-domains in this case? 2 answers I have a company and website like www.example.com We have 1 industry with product 1 ,product 2 and another industry with product 3 and product 4 . All these products are different to each other my questions is like should have subdomains like www.industry1.example.com or www.example.com/industry1 If it is industry1.example.com it might sense different domain , if it is example.com/industry1 the number of folders might increase Please suggest a best solution for this thanks, Raj

    Read the article

  • what's wrong with my sitemap?

    - by cadrian
    Google Webmaster Tools says that my sitemap is in a wrong format. I don't see my mistake, I think I followed every guideline provided by Google. Can someone help me? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/</loc> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/presentation/</loc> <lastmod>2012-01-30T21:49:06+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/les-concerts/</loc> <lastmod>2012-12-13T21:55:00+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/ecoutez-contraste/</loc> <lastmod>2012-07-13T18:19:45+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/repertoire/</loc> <lastmod>2012-07-13T17:30:14+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/la-presse/</loc> <lastmod>2012-07-11T08:17:48+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/recrutement/</loc> <lastmod>2012-02-01T22:22:03+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/nos-partenaires/</loc> <lastmod>2012-07-11T07:43:31+01:00</lastmod> </url> <url> <loc>http://www.vocalcontraste.fr/contactez-nous/</loc> <lastmod>2012-02-02T19:01:32+01:00</lastmod> </url> </urlset>

    Read the article

  • can canonical links be used to make 'duplicate' pages unique?

    - by merk
    We have a website that allows users to list items for sale. Think ebay - except we don't actually deal with selling the item, we just list it for sale and provide a way to contact the seller. Anyhow, in several cases sellers maybe have multiple units of an item for sale. We don't have a quantity field, so they upload each item as a separate listing (and using a quantity field is not an option). So we have a lot of pages which basically have the exact same info and only the item # might be different. The SEO guy we've started using has said we should put a canonical link on each page, and have the canonical link point to itself. So for example, www.mysite.com/something/ would have a canonical link of href="www.mysite.com/something/" This doesn't really seem kosher to me. I thought canonical links we're suppose to point to other pages. The SEO guy claims doing it this way will tell google all these pages are indeed unique, even if they do basically have the same content. This seems a little off to me since what's to stop a spammer from putting up a million pages and doing this as well? Can anyone tell me if the SEO guy's suggestion is valid or not? If it's not valid, then do i need to figure out some way to check for duplicated items and automatically pick one of the duplicates to serve as an original and generate canonical links based off that? Thanks in advance for any help

    Read the article

  • Welcome to ubiquitous file sharing (December 08, 2009)

    - by user12612012
    The core of any file server is its file system and ZFS provides the foundation on which we have built our ubiquitous file sharing and single access control model.  ZFS has a rich, Windows and NFSv4 compatible, ACL implementation (ZFS only uses ACLs), it understands both UNIX IDs and Windows SIDs and it is integrated with the identity mapping service; it knows when a UNIX/NIS user and a Windows user are equivalent, and similarly for groups.  We have a single access control architecture, regardless of whether you are accessing the system via NFS or SMB/CIFS.The NFS and SMB protocol services are also integrated with the identity mapping service and shares are not restricted to UNIX permissions or Windows permissions.  All access control is performed by ZFS, the system can always share file systems simultaneously over both protocols and our model is native access to any share from either protocol.Modal architectures have unnecessary restrictions, confusing rules, administrative overhead and weird deployments to try to make them work; they exist as a compromise not because they offer a benefit.  Having some shares that only support UNIX permissions, others that only support ACLs and some that support both in a quirky way really doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd want in a multi-protocol file server.  Perhaps because the server has been built on a file system that was designed for UNIX permissions, possibly with ACL support bolted on as an add-on afterthought, or because the protocol services are not truly integrated with the operating system, it may not be capable of supporting a single integrated model.With a single, integrated sharing and access control model: If you connect from Windows or another SMB/CIFS client: The system creates a credential containing both your Windows identity and your UNIX/NIS identity.  The credential includes UNIX/NIS IDs and SIDs, and UNIX/NIS groups and Windows groups. If your Windows identity is mapped to an ephemeral ID, files created by you will be owned by your Windows identity (ZFS understands both UNIX IDs and Windows SIDs). If your Windows identity is mapped to a real UNIX/NIS UID, files created by you will be owned by your UNIX/NIS identity. If you access a file that you previously created from UNIX, the system will map your UNIX identity to your Windows identity and recognize that you are the owner.  Identity mapping also supports access checking if you are being assessed for access via the ACL. If you connect via NFS (typically from a UNIX client): The system creates a credential containing your UNIX/NIS identity (including groups). Files you create will be owned by your UNIX/NIS identity. If you access a file that you previously created from Windows and the file is owned by your UID, no mapping is required. Otherwise the system will map your Windows identity to your UNIX/NIS identity and recognize that you are the owner.  Again, mapping is fully supported during ACL processing. The NFS, SMB/CIFS and ZFS services all work cooperatively to ensure that your UNIX identity and your Windows identity are equivalent when you access the system.  This, along with the single ACL-based access control implementation, results in a system that provides that elusive ubiquitous file sharing experience.

    Read the article

  • Trouble with .htacess redirection

    - by mike23
    I use this redirect rule to redirect users from www.domain.com/admin to www.domain.com/wp-admin on a Wordpress site. RedirectMatch 301 \@admin http://www.domain.com/wp-admin The problem is that instead redirecting to wp-admin/, it redirects to an article called Administrators are awesome people (slug : administrators-are-awesome-people) I can guess what is going on, WP sees that there is an article slug starting with "admin", and redirects to it, overruling my own rule. Is there a way to be more specific, like saying "redirect urls that end with exactly admin ?

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to Block These URLs with Robots.txt?

    - by Edgar Quintero
    I have a website that has all URLs optimized and 301 redirected from nasty URLs to clean ones. However, everywhere throughout the site the unclean URLs are linked in menus, content, products, etc. Google currently has all clean URLs indexed, along with a few unclean URLs too. So the site still has linked everywhere the old URLs (ideally this wouldn't be the case but this is how it is ATM). I would like to block the unclean URLs with robots.txt. The question: If I block these unclean URLs with the robots.txt, when the entire website is linked with them (but they all redirect to the clean version), will this affect the indexing status at all?

    Read the article

  • Should mobile webpages have hreflang links to non-mobile pages?

    - by Noam
    My site has multilingual links, which are specified like this on non-mobile pages: <link rel="alternate" hreflang="en" href="http://mydomain.com/page" /> <link rel="alternate" hreflang="jp" href="http://ja.mydomain.com/page" /> <link rel="alternate" hreflang="ko" href="http://ko.mydomain.com/page" /> In addition, these non-mobile pages link to a mobile version: <link rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="/mobile/page" /> Now the question is about what links should be in the mobile page, which isn't translated to different languages now. Is this enough: <link rel="canonical" href="/page"/> Or should I also have the same group of hreflangs that point to non-mobile pages?

    Read the article

  • Should I use nodindex, follow or rel canonical?

    - by webmasters
    I have a site that lists offers, promotions from other websites. Since the offers expire rather quickly I don't save them into my database. I see no point in having a page from 2010 about 30% discount on a certain brand of shoes which isn't availabe anymore. A visitor enters my website; He clicks on the "shoes" category; http://www.mysite.com/shoes/ Here he sees 20 available promotions from different online stores. He clicks on a promotion and gets to a page like this: http://www.mysite.com/shoes/promotions/prada Questions: I use the template promotions.php and list all the promotions. /promotions/prada/ /promotions/otherbrand/ .... What I do is use "noindex, follow" for the links. Is that a good idea? Or should I use rel="canonical" for the promotion page? How do you advise me to handle this from the SEO point of view?

    Read the article

  • Why do we need a format for binary executable files

    - by user3671483
    When binary files (i.e. executables) are saved they usually have a format (e.g. ELF or .out) where we have a header containing pointers to where data or code is stored inside the file. But why don't we store the binary files directly in the form of sequence of machine instructions.Why do we need to store data separately from the code?Secondly when the assembler creates a binary file is the file is among the above formats?

    Read the article

  • Compare domain names effectiveness

    - by Jubbat
    I have a business, it's not purely online, but its presence is mainly online. I have purchased different domain names which I liked. Is there any service that allows you to compare their effectiveness attracting customers? I want to choose the one that will be more successful in making the customer click on my ads or my website as a search result or simply evokes a better service or sounds more nicely. How can I go about this in a scientific manner, with no assumptions, without spending lots of money and time?

    Read the article

  • rel="Canonical": Ranking Benefits ? & specifying for PDF?

    - by Miak
    I think I understand the basic case for using rel="canonical": to tell google which is the preferred URI when the same page/content may be accessed via more than one URI. This helps you avoid duplicate content penalties. But what else does it do? Does it also affect search ranking? i.e. will the page I specify in the canonical be ranked higher than the others? (if all else equal). And in the case of PDF documents, I understand that you can now specify rel="canonical" for them too, using HTTP headers (i.e. in htaccess). Again, this would obviously help avoid dupilcate content penalties if the PDF content is the same as the HTML page or if it can be accessed in more than one place. But does it affect ranking? or are there any other benefits to doing this.

    Read the article

  • How to set up www cname for free dyndns subdomain

    - by Mk12
    I have a free dyndns domain mk12.gotdns.com How can I set up a cname for www.mk12.gotdns.com to point to mk12.gotdns.com? And how can I force the www one, so that if you navigate to mk12.gotdns.com, it will go to the www one? Note: I don't mean html redirecting, but I think you can do it with url rewriting somehow, something like described here. I've seen many tutorials, but they just vaguely say that you have to enter a cname record, I have no clue what file I need to put it in. Also, please see my question http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1618998/apache-url-rewriting-wont-work about getting url rewriting to work.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >