Search Results

Search found 24401 results on 977 pages for 'duplicate content'.

Page 2/977 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Duplicate Content Problem due to plugin

    - by Amar Ryder
    Actually i am running website on wordpress where i have installed Transposh plugin on my site 'example'. Unfortunately, despite having English as the default language and therefore available at example.com/xxx, Google is indexing example.com/en/xxx so i m getting problem with duplicate content now i want to remove this plugin and links from google so that my content will be refine without getting duplicate content pages. Do you have any solution to do this safely. I think myself to remove this plugin from website, though it will create 404 errors from google links but i can add redirect code in htaccess till google would remove that "example.com/en/xxx " not found links. If you know any other healthy way to handle this please help me!

    Read the article

  • Separate urls for a set of pages sharing 80% duplicate content

    - by user131003
    Issue: Currently my site has one particular page which has country specific data. So I've URLs like : mysite.com/sale-united-states mysite.com/sale-united-kingdom mysite.com/sale-sweden etc. All these pages have 80-90% common content and 10-20% country specific content. currently all these pages canonically point to mysite.com/sale-united-states. The problem is when someone searches for "sale Sweden", Google correctly shows mysite.com/sale-united-states page, which does not feel correct as it shows US page instead of Sweden. Now I'm thinking of not using canonical url so that country specific urls are produced in Google saerch. But I'm not sure how 80% duplicate content is going to affect SEO? What should be the recommended approach for this situation? A friend of mine suggested a "separate subdomain per country" based approach but it seems overkill for one page.

    Read the article

  • Using rel=next and rel=prev with multiple sets of paginated content on the same page

    - by jakejgordon
    We are running into issues with trying to figure out how to implement rel="next" and rel="prev" -- coupled with rel="canonical" -- with multiple sets of paginated content on the same page, with pages in multiple cultures. In other words, how do we implement these when we have a pager for both Product Reviews and Questions and Answers (aka "Q&A") on the same page, with duplicate content across culture-specific URLs (e.g. /us/en/my-product vs. /ca/en/my-product)? Our current implementation will actually do a full postback when you click Page 2, and will add something to the query string (e.g. website.com/ca/en/my-product?previewpage=2 or website.com/ca/en/my-product?questionpage=2). If we only had one set of paginated content then the implementation would certainly be more straightforward. Adding a second set of paginated content (i.e. Q&A) complicates things. Let's assume that we want the United States English page to be the canonical target (i.e. /us/en/my-product) based on culture. If you go to the /ca/en/my-product page you'll have a rel="canonical" href="/us/en/my-product". So far so good. Let's also assume that we are not implementing a page that lists ALL Product Reviews and Q&A. This would likely solve a number of our problems by using rel="canonical" to this page, but is not an option for reasons that are out of scope for this discussion. Now if you click on page 2 of Product Reviews, it will reload the page with /ca/en/my-product?reviewpage=2 as the URL. Given this scenario, here are my questions: On page 2 of the my-product page on the Canadian site, should there be a rel="canonical" to /us/en/my-product?reviewpage=2 (assuming the content is identical in the United States and Canada)? Should the rel="prev" go to /ca/en/my-product?reviewpage=1 or should it go to /ca/en/my-product ? The query-string version would really only be accessible if using the pager and shows the exact same content as the base page. The following two questions are closely related to this one. Should the /ca/en/my-product?reviewpage=1 have a rel canonical directly to /us/en/my-product (United States page with nothing in query string) since the content is identical)? Given that Q&A content is also paginated, should there be a rel="next" on the base page without query string? In other words, should the /ca/en/my-product page have a rel="next" to /ca/en/my-product?reviewpage=2 AND rel="next" to /ca/en/my-product?questionpage=2 . So far as I can tell it doesn't make sense to have multiple rel="next" implementations on the same page. I suspect that the pages with query string values should have rel="next" and rel="prev" that only point to other pages with query strings and not to the base page. The ?reviewpage=1 and ?questionpage=1 pages would then just have a rel="canonical" to /us/en/my-product . Thoughts? I know this is a tough one -- that's why I brought it to this community. Thanks so much for your help in advance!

    Read the article

  • Partitioned Repository for WebCenter Content using Oracle Database 11g

    - by Adao Junior
    One of the biggest challenges for content management solutions is related to the storage management due the high volumes of the unstoppable growing of information. Even if you have storage appliances and a lot of terabytes, thinks like backup, compression, deduplication, storage relocation, encryption, availability could be a nightmare. One standard option that you have with the Oracle WebCenter Content is to store data to the database. And the Oracle Database allows you leverage features like compression, deduplication, encryption and seamless backup. But with a huge volume, the challenge is passed to the DBA to keep the WebCenter Content Database up and running. One solution is the use of DB partitions for your content repository, but what are the implications of this? Can I fit this with my business requirements? Well, yes. It’s up to you how you will manage that, you just need a good plan. During you “storage brainstorm plan” take in your mind what you need, such as storage petabytes of documents? You need everything on-line? There’s a way to logically separate the “good content” from the “legacy content”? The first thing that comes to my mind is to use the creation date of the document, but you need to remember that this document could receive a lot of revisions and maybe you can consider the revision creation date. Your plan can have also complex rules like per Document Type or per a custom metadata like department or an hybrid per date, per DocType and an specific virtual folder. Extrapolation the use, you can have your repository distributed in different servers, different disks, different disk types (Such as ssds, sas, sata, tape,…), separated accordingly your business requirements, separating the “hot” content from the legacy and easily matching your compliance requirements. If you think to use by revision, the simple way is to consider the dId, that is the sequential unique id for every content created using the WebCenter Content or the dLastModified that is the date field of the FileStorage table that contains the date of inclusion of the content to the DB Table using SecureFiles. Using the scenario of partitioned repository using an hierarchical separation by date, we will transform the FileStorage table in an partitioned table using  “Partition by Range” of the dLastModified column (You can use the dId or a join with other tables for other metadata such as dDocType, Security, etc…). The test scenario bellow covers: Previous existent data on the JDBC Storage to be migrated to the new partitioned JDBC Storage Partition by Date Automatically generation of new partitions based on a pre-defined interval (Available only with Oracle Database 11g+) Deduplication and Compression for legacy data Oracle WebCenter Content 11g PS5 (Could present some customizations that do not affect the test scenario) For the test case you need some data stored using JDBC Storage to be the “legacy” data. If you do not have done before, just create an Storage rule pointed to the JDBC Storage: Enable the metadata StorageRule in the UI and upload some documents using this rule. For this test case you can run using the schema owner or an dba user. We will use the schema owner TESTS_OCS. I can’t forgot to tell that this is just a test and you should do a proper backup of your environment. When you use the schema owner, you need some privileges, using the dba user grant the privileges needed: REM Grant privileges required for online redefinition. GRANT EXECUTE ON DBMS_REDEFINITION TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT ALTER ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT DROP ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT LOCK ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT CREATE ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT SELECT ANY TABLE TO TESTS_OCS; REM Privileges required to perform cloning of dependent objects. GRANT CREATE ANY TRIGGER TO TESTS_OCS; GRANT CREATE ANY INDEX TO TESTS_OCS; In our test scenario we will separate the content as Legacy, Day1, Day2, Day3 and Future. This last one will partitioned automatically using 3 tablespaces in a round robin mode. In a real scenario the partition rule could be per month, per year or any rule that you choose. Table spaces for the test scenario: CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_legacy.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day1.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day2.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 DATAFILE 'tests_ocs_part_day3.dat' SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_A 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_a.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_B 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_b.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; CREATE TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_C 'tests_ocs_part_round_robin_c.dat' DATAFILE SIZE 500K AUTOEXTEND ON NEXT 500K MAXSIZE UNLIMITED; Before start, gather optimizer statistics on the actual FileStorage table: EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(USER, 'FileStorage', cascade => TRUE); Now check if is possible execute the redefinition process: EXEC DBMS_REDEFINITION.CAN_REDEF_TABLE('TESTS_OCS', 'FileStorage',DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_USE_PK); If no errors messages, you are good to go. Create a Partitioned Interim FileStorage table. You need to create a new table with the partition information to act as an interim table: CREATE TABLE FILESTORAGE_Part ( DID NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE, DRENDITIONID VARCHAR2(30 CHAR) NOT NULL ENABLE, DLASTMODIFIED TIMESTAMP (6), DFILESIZE NUMBER(*,0), DISDELETED VARCHAR2(1 CHAR), BFILEDATA BLOB ) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( ENABLE STORAGE IN ROW NOCACHE LOGGING KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) PARTITION BY RANGE (DLASTMODIFIED) INTERVAL (NUMTODSINTERVAL(1,'DAY')) STORE IN (TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_A, TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_B, TESTS_OCS_PART_ROUND_ROBIN_C) ( PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_LEGACY RETENTION NONE DEDUPLICATE COMPRESS HIGH ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY1 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES COMPRESS ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY2 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ), PARTITION FILESTORAGE_PART_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( TABLESPACE TESTS_OCS_PART_DAY3 RETENTION AUTO KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) ); After the creation you should see your partitions defined. Note that only the fixed range partitions have been created, none of the interval partition have been created. Start the redefinition process: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.START_REDEF_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS' ,orig_table => 'FileStorage' ,int_table => 'FileStorage_PART' ,col_mapping => NULL ,options_flag => DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_USE_PK ); END; This operation can take some time to complete, depending how many contents that you have and on the size of the table. Using the DBA user you can check the progress with this command: SELECT * FROM v$sesstat WHERE sid = 1; Copy dependent objects: DECLARE redefinition_errors PLS_INTEGER := 0; BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.COPY_TABLE_DEPENDENTS( uname => 'TESTS_OCS' ,orig_table => 'FileStorage' ,int_table => 'FileStorage_PART' ,copy_indexes => DBMS_REDEFINITION.CONS_ORIG_PARAMS ,copy_triggers => TRUE ,copy_constraints => TRUE ,copy_privileges => TRUE ,ignore_errors => TRUE ,num_errors => redefinition_errors ,copy_statistics => FALSE ,copy_mvlog => FALSE ); IF (redefinition_errors > 0) THEN DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('>>> FileStorage to FileStorage_PART temp copy Errors: ' || TO_CHAR(redefinition_errors)); END IF; END; With the DBA user, verify that there's no errors: SELECT object_name, base_table_name, ddl_txt FROM DBA_REDEFINITION_ERRORS; *Note that will show 2 lines related to the constrains, this is expected. Synchronize the interim table FileStorage_PART: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.SYNC_INTERIM_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS', orig_table => 'FileStorage', int_table => 'FileStorage_PART'); END; Gather statistics on the new table: EXEC DBMS_STATS.GATHER_TABLE_STATS(USER, 'FileStorage_PART', cascade => TRUE); Complete the redefinition: BEGIN DBMS_REDEFINITION.FINISH_REDEF_TABLE( uname => 'TESTS_OCS', orig_table => 'FileStorage', int_table => 'FileStorage_PART'); END; During the execution the FileStorage table is locked in exclusive mode until finish the operation. After the last command the FileStorage table is partitioned. If you have contents out of the range partition, you should see the new partitions created automatically, not generating an error if you “forgot” to create all the future ranges. You will see something like: You now can drop the FileStorage_PART table: border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; text-align: left; border-left-color: silver; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; padding-bottom: 4px; line-height: 12pt; background-color: #f4f4f4; margin-top: 20px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; padding-left: 4px; width: 97.5%; padding-right: 4px; font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace; direction: ltr; max-height: 200px; font-size: 8pt; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: auto; border-top-color: silver; border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; cursor: text; border-right-color: silver; border-right-width: 1px; border-right-style: solid; padding-top: 4px; " id="codeSnippetWrapper"> DROP TABLE FileStorage_PART PURGE; To check the FileStorage table is valid and is partitioned, use the command: SELECT num_rows,partitioned FROM user_tables WHERE table_name = 'FILESTORAGE'; You can list the contents of the FileStorage table in a specific partition, per example: SELECT * FROM FileStorage PARTITION (FILESTORAGE_PART_LEGACY) Some useful commands that you can use to check the partitions, note that you need to run using a DBA user: SELECT * FROM DBA_TAB_PARTITIONS WHERE table_name = 'FILESTORAGE';   SELECT * FROM DBA_TABLESPACES WHERE tablespace_name like 'TESTS_OCS%'; After the redefinition process complete you have a new FileStorage table storing all content that has the Storage rule pointed to the JDBC Storage and partitioned using the rule set during the creation of the temporary interim FileStorage_PART table. At this point you can test the WebCenter Content downloading the documents (Original and Renditions). Note that the content could be already in the cache area, take a look in the weblayout directory to see if a file with the same id is there, then click on the web rendition of your test file and see if have created the file and you can open, this means that is all working. The redefinition process can be repeated many times, this allow you test what the better layout, over and over again. Now some interesting maintenance actions related to the partitions: Make an tablespace read only. No issues viewing, the WebCenter Content do not alter the revisions When try to delete an content that is part of an read only tablespace, an error will occurs and the document will not be deleted The only way to prevent errors today is creating an custom component that checks the partitions and if you have an document in an “Read Only” repository, execute the deletion process of the metadata and mark the document to be deleted on the next db maintenance, like a new redefinition. Take an tablespace off-line for archiving purposes or any other reason. When you try open an document that is included in this tablespace will receive an error that was unable to retrieve the content, but the others online tablespaces are not affected. Same behavior when deleting documents. Again, an custom component is the solution. If you have an document “out of range”, the component can show an message that the repository for that document is offline. This can be extended to a option to the user to request to put online again. Moving some legacy content to an offline repository (table) using the Exchange option to move the content from one partition to a empty nonpartitioned table like FileStorage_LEGACY. Note that this option will remove the registers from the FileStorage and will not be able to open the stored content. You always need to keep in mind the indexes and constrains. An redefinition separating the original content (vault) from the renditions and separate by date ate the same time. This could be an option for DAM environments that want to have an special place for the renditions and put the original files in a storage with less performance. The process will be the same, you just need to change the script of the interim table to use composite partitioning. Will be something like: CREATE TABLE FILESTORAGE_RenditionPart ( DID NUMBER(*,0) NOT NULL ENABLE, DRENDITIONID VARCHAR2(30 CHAR) NOT NULL ENABLE, DLASTMODIFIED TIMESTAMP (6), DFILESIZE NUMBER(*,0), DISDELETED VARCHAR2(1 CHAR), BFILEDATA BLOB ) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE ( ENABLE STORAGE IN ROW NOCACHE LOGGING KEEP_DUPLICATES NOCOMPRESS ) PARTITION BY LIST (DRENDITIONID) SUBPARTITION BY RANGE (DLASTMODIFIED) ( PARTITION Vault VALUES ('primaryFile') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_VAULT_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) ,PARTITION WebLayout VALUES ('webViewableFile') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_WEBLAYOUT_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) ,PARTITION Special VALUES ('Special') ( SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_LEGACY VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('05-APR-2012 12.00.00 AM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY1 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.25.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY2 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.55.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_DAY3 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('06-APR-2012 07.58.00 PM', 'DD-MON-YYYY HH.MI.SS AM')) LOB (BFILEDATA) STORE AS SECUREFILE , SUBPARTITION FILESTORAGE_SPECIAL_FUTURE VALUES LESS THAN (MAXVALUE) ) )ENABLE ROW MOVEMENT; The next post related to partitioned repository will come with an sample component to handle the possible exceptions when you need to take off line an tablespace/partition or move to another place. Also, we can include some integration to the Retention Management and Records Management. Another subject related to partitioning is the ability to create an FileStore Provider pointed to a different database, raising the level of the distributed storage vs. performance. Let us know if this is important to you or you have an use case not listed, leave a comment. Cross-posted on the blog.ContentrA.com

    Read the article

  • Becoming the well-integrated content company (and combating AIUTLVFS)

    - by Lance Shaw
    Every single day, each of us create more and more content. Sometimes it is brand new material and many times it is iterations of existing content, but no one would argue that information and content growth is growing at an almost exponential rate. With all this content being created and stored, a number of problems naturally arise. One of the most common issues that users run into is "Am I Using The Latest Version of this File Syndrome", or AIUTLVFS. This insidious syndrome is all too common and results in ineffective, poor or downright wrong business decisions being made.  When content or files are unavailable or incorrect within the scope of key business processes, the chance for erroneous and costly business decisions is magnified even further. For many companies, the ideal scenario is to be able to connect multiple business systems, both old and new, into one common content repository.  Not only does this reduce content duplication, it also helps guarantee that everyone in various departments is working off the proverbial "same page".  Sounds simple - but for many organizations, the proliferation of file shares, SharePoint sites, and other storage silos of content keep the dream of a more efficient business a distant one. We've created some online assets to help you in your evaluation and eventual improvement of your current content management and delivery systems. Take a few minutes to check out our Online Assessment Tool.  It's quick, easy and just might provide you with insights into how you can improve your current content ecosystem. While you are there, check out our new Infographic that outlines common issues faced by companies today. Feel free to save our informative Infographic PDF and share it with business colleagues and your management to help them understand the business costs and impact of inaction. Together we can stop AIUTLVFS in its tracks and run our businesses more effectively than ever. Additionally, we hope you will take a few minutes to visit our new and informative webpages dedicated to the value of a well connected, fully integrated content management system. It's a great place to learn more about how integrating WebCenter Content into your infrastructure can lower your operational costs while boosting process and worker efficiency.

    Read the article

  • Single paging Meta Tag Duplication [duplicate]

    - by Dominic Reigns
    This question already has an answer here: Should paginated content have unique meta tags? 1 answer How to make Google understand about single paging content issue ? A single page has got above 100 paging ? 1-10 of 199 Go to Page 12345678910 ... like this as mentioned above, Do I need to put fresh meta tag on each page ??? Help me out from this issue ?

    Read the article

  • The Minimalist Approach to Content Governance - Create Phase

    - by Kellsey Ruppel
     Originally posted by John Brunswick. In this installment of our Minimalist Approach to Content Governance we finally get to the fun part of the content creation process! Once the content requester has addressed the items outlined in the Request Phase it is time to setup and begin the production of content.   For this to be done correctly it is important the the content be assigned appropriate workflow and security information. As in our prior phase, let's take a look at what can be done to streamline this process - as contributors are focused on getting information to their end users as quickly as possible. This often means that details around how to ensure that the materials are properly managed can be overlooked, but fortunately there are some techniques that leverage our content management system's native capabilities to automatically take care of some of the details. 1. Determine Access Why - Even if content is not something that needs to restricted due to security reasons, it is helpful to apply access rights so that the content ends up being visible only to users that it relates to. This will greatly improve user experience. For instance, if your team is working on a group project many of your fellow company employees do not need to see the content that is being worked on for that project. How - Make use of native content features that allow propagation of security and meta data from parent folders within your content system that have been setup for your particular effort. This makes it painless to enforce security, as well as meta data policies for even the most unorganized users. The default settings at a parent level can be set once the content creation request has been accepted and a location in the content management system is assigned for your specific project. Impact - Users can find information will less effort, as they will only be exposed to what they need for their work and can leverage advanced search features to take advantage of meta data assigned to content. The combination of default security and meta data will also help in running reports against the content in the Manage and Retire stages that we will discuss in the next 2 posts. 2. Assign Workflow (optional depending on nature of content) Why - Every case for workflow is going to be a bit different, but it generally involves ensuring that content conforms to management, legal and or editorial requirements. How - Oracle's Universal Content Management offers two ways of helping to workflow content without much effort. Workflow can be applied to content based on Criteria acting on meta data or explicitly assigned to content with a Basic workflow. Impact - Any content that needs additional attention before release is addressed, allowing users to comment and version until a suitable result is reached. By using inheritance from parent folders within the content management system content can automatically be given the right security, meta data and workflow information for a particular project's content. This relieves the burden of doing this for every piece of content from management teams and content contributors. We will cover more about the management phase within the content lifecycle in our next installment.

    Read the article

  • SEO with duplicate content

    - by user16831
    I have a nature photography site with multiple types of photo galleries. Each photo and associated caption on my site appears in several galleries. For instance, a photo of a goldfinch that was taken on a trip to New Mexico in 2008 will appear in the "goldfinch.php" gallery, in the "finches.php" gallery, and in the "New_Mexico_2008.php" gallery. This duplication is useful for my site visitors - User A may want to see goldfinch photos, whereas User B wants to see photos from New Mexico - but I am concerned about the SEO implications. The typical suggestions to deal with duplicate content, such as 301 redirects and canonical tags, probably won't work in this case, because the page content is substantially different (ranging from ~1% to ~90% duplication, depending on the specific example chosen). The obvious solution to me would be to edit robots.txt to only allow search engines to crawl one type of gallery - for instance, if they crawled only the galleries organized by species(e.g. goldfinch.php), all the photos on my site would be found exactly once. However, the Google content guidelines recommend against blocking crawler access to duplicate information. Should I go ahead and use robots.txt anyway? Or is there a better solution?

    Read the article

  • How to delete duplicate records in MySQL by retaining those fields with data in the duplicate item b

    - by NJTechGuy
    I have few thousands of records with few 100 fields in a MySQL Table. Some records are duplicates and are marked as such. Now while I can simply delete the dupes, I want to retain any other possible valuable non-null data which is not present in the original version of the record. Hope I made sense. For instance : a b c d e f key dupe -------------------- 1 d c f k l 1 x 2 g h j 1 3 i h u u 2 4 u r t 2 x From the above sample table, the desired output is : a b c d e f key dupe -------------------- 2 g c h k j 1 3 i r h u u 2 If you look at it closely, the duplicate is determined by using the key (it is the same for 2 records, so the one that has an 'x' for dupe field is the one to be deleted by retaining some of the fields from the dupe (like c, e values for key 1). Please let me know if you need more info about this puzzling problem. Thanks a tonne! p.s : If it is not possible using MySQL, a PERL/Python script sample would be awesome! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What is duplicate content and how can I avoid being penalized for it on my site?

    - by danlefree
    This is a general, community wiki question regarding duplicate content. If your question was closed as a duplicate of this question and you feel that the information provided here does not provide a sufficient answer, please open a discussion on Pro Webmasters Meta. What does Google consider to be duplicate content? Will the way I am presenting my content result in a duplicate content penalty? How can I avoid having my site's content treated as duplicate content?

    Read the article

  • Collaborate 2010: Spotlight on Oracle Content Management

    - by [email protected]
    Excitement is building for the Collaborate conference April 18th through the 22nd. Outside of the event being in Las Vegas, which for me often seems to add to the excitement, there will be a great lineup of Oracle Content Management focused sessions. In fact, there are currently over 30 content management sessions scheduled, and attendees will get to hear from customers, partners, as well as Oracle experts. Attendees should expect to hear a lot about Oracle Content Management 11g at Collaborate 2010. Roel Stalman and Andy MacMillan will kick off these discussions on Monday, April 19th as they present Oracle Content Management's product strategy and roadmap (10:45 - 11:45). Monday's lineup also includes sessions on Oracle Imaging and Process Management (I/PM) 11g and Oracle Forms Recognition (2:30 - 3:30), which were both released in January. For those customers using older versions of I/PM or Stellent IBPM, be sure not to miss the "migrating to I/PM 11g" session on Monday as well (1:15 - 2:15) as this should give you some insight into the migration process. Check out the entire list of Oracle Content Management sessions here. Another focus at Collaborate this year is to discuss the benefits of using Oracle Content Management with Oracle Applications - Oracle E-Business Suite, PeopleSoft, and Siebel - so be sure to check out these sessions too: Accelerating Accounts Payable Processes with Integrated Document Imaging(Monday, April 19th, 3:45 - 4:45)Supercharge Your Siebel Sales and Marketing with Integrated Document Management(Tuesday, April 20th, 2:00 - 3:00)Oracle Enterprise 2.0 for Oracle Applications: The Value of an Integrated E2.0 Platform(Tuesday, April 20th, 3:15 - 4:15)Comprehensive Human Resources Automation with Oracle Content Management(Wednesday, April 21st, 1:00 - 2:00) Collaborate is also the perfect opportunity to meet Oracle executives and product experts. Attendees can sign up for 1 on 1 meetings at the event, and there will be someone representing each Oracle Content Management product. These meetings are probably the best way to get your product questions answered in a face-to-face manner. It seems more and more to me that Oracle Content Management customers are viewing Collaborate as "the" conference to attend each year. I hope you have plans to attend and I will see you there.

    Read the article

  • Duplicate content in Top Level Domain and country specific website

    - by Ando
    I have myproduct.com which is my master product page. For UK I also own myproduct.co.uk which is a copy of myproduct.com with some localized content: landing page, promotions, prices, and specific tags. But there is also duplicate content: myproduct.com/FAQs/ is the same as myproduct.co.uk/FAQs/ I don't want to do a redirect from myproduct.co.uk/FAQs/ to myproduct.com/FAQs/ as I don't want people to leave the localized website. The myproduct.com/FAQs/ is my "go-to" FAQ page and it's the most likely to be up to date - so I want this page to be indexed my search engines, where as I don't care about myproduct.co.uk/FAQs/ being indexed (unless indexing this page would increase my page rank :) ). What to do now to be SEO friendly & SEO optimal? Stop indexing of myproduct.co.uk/FAQs/ via robots.txt? Do some rel="alternate" hreflang="x" configuring on both /FAQs/ page? Something else?

    Read the article

  • International TLD's vs. duplicate content

    - by Litso
    Hey all, I currently work at a pretty big website that has visitors from around the globe. My job is to help out on the SEO, and one thing we've been discussing lately is the use of international TLD's. The ones we use range between: (partly) translated websites like .es and .de that serve most of the content in the country's language non-translated (english) websites for non-english languages (due to a lack of translations) like .ro and .cz english websites for english speaking countries with localized TLD's (.co.nz, .co.uk) On one hand I really have the feeling this is causing a lot of duplicate content, especially for the last two categories of TLD's. On the other hand though it seems a lot like country-specific TLD's tend to score a lot better in that country's Google. Would it be advisable to keep on using these domains, or should we canonicalize them all to the .com version?

    Read the article

  • Avoid penalties for duplicate (multilanguage) shared hosting

    - by Dave
    My concern is about SEO. Now let me explain the scenario. I am making a 3 languages website. The development is alright, but I was targeting local customers with one domain, and international (english version) with another. Eg: Local http://www.minhalojadesapatos.com.br (this is not the real website, just example!) Other http://www.myshoesstore.com.br Both domain point to exactly the same hosting and content, but when user comes through local domain, default language is set to portuguese, otherwise, default is english. Language handling on backend uses PHP Sessions and cookies, so with just a click users can change content language. How to avoid being SEO-penalised in this context? (yeah, I was hungry when focusing market for choosing two domains but the activity really needs that, it is a travel agency).

    Read the article

  • I am receiving a message saying I have duplicate sources but I can't seem to find a duplicate of the line described, any ideas?

    - by David Griffiths
    I receive this meassage when I run sudo apt-get update in the terminal:- Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ precise/partner i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_partner_binary-i386_Packages) So i ran the command gksu gedit /etc/apt/sources.list and checked the source to find there was no duplicate, not that I can see anyway. Here is the source:- # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release i386 (20120423)]/ precise main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted #Added by software-properties # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise main restricted deb-src http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise restricted main multiverse universe #Added by software-properties ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates main restricted deb-src http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates restricted main multiverse universe #Added by software-properties ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise universe deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise multiverse deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates multiverse ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb-src http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse #Added by software-properties deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security restricted main multiverse universe #Added by software-properties deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Ubuntu's ## 'extras' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main # deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main deb http://repository.spotify.com stable non-free I can see there are two lines of deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner but one has #deb-src at the beginning of it. Hashed out no? I'm quite new to linux OS and have little to none sourced editing skills so any help would be most appreciated. Thank you:)

    Read the article

  • How to Avoid Duplicate Content in Wordpress Ecommerce Store

    - by Bhanuprakash Moturu
    hi i run a word press eCommerce store powered by woo commerce . i have a large inventory of products most of the product description is same for all products and its mandatory to include it. its creating a large duplicate content on site each category have 6 products i thought of a solution can you suggest which one is good 1 no index and follow product page and link it to categories page using canonical tag 2 index and nofollow product page and link it to categories page using canonical tag which is the best solution and is it a good practice to use canonical tag to link to categories page

    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

  • Appropriate response when client empowered with CMS destroys content to his own will

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I just recently closed a website project that pretty much was The Oatmeals' Design Hell, but with content. The client loved the site at the beginning but started getting other people involved and mercilessly bombarding us with their opinions. We served a carefully thought content strategy (which the client approved) and extremely curated copywriting that took us four months after at least 5 requirement changes (new content, new objectives for the business, changed offerings, new mindfaps, etc.) that required us to rewrite the content about 3 times. The client never gave timely feedback even though we kept the process open for him and his people to see (content being developed transparently in Google Docs). Near the end of the project he still wanted to make changes but wanted us to finish already (there are not enough words in the world to even try to make sense of this). So I explained to him the obvious implications of the never-ending requirement changes and advised him to take the time to gather his thoughts with his own team and see the new content introduced as a new content maintenance project. He happily accepted, but on the day of training/delivery things went very wrong and we have no idea why. The client didn't even allow the site to be out for a week with the content we developed for him and quickly replaced us with a Joomla savvy intern so that he completely destroy the content with shallow, unstructured, tasteless and plain wordsmithing (and I'm not even being visceral). Worst insult of all, he revoked our access from his server and the deployed CMS not even having passed 10 minutes of being given his administrator account (we realized the day after that he did it in our own office, the nerve!). Everybody involved in the team is enraged and insulted. I never want to see this happen again. So, to try to make sense of this situation and avoid it in the future with new clients I have two concrete questions: Is there even an appropriate course of action with a client like this?, or is he just not worth the trouble of analyzing (blindly hoping this never repeats again). In the exercise to try and blame ourselves instead of the client and take this as a lesson of... something, how should we set expectations for new clients about the working terms, process and final product so that they are discouraged from mauling the content to their own contempt once they get the codes to the nukes (access to the CMS)?

    Read the article

  • snmpd agent sends duplicate traps

    - by jsnmp
    I am on Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS, and I cannot upgrade to a higher version. I have installed the snmpd agent (NET-SNMP version 5.4.2.1) with an apt-get install snmpd command. When an event occurs which sends a trap, two traps are sent for each such event instead of one. For example, when I shut down the agent with command /etc/init.d/snmpd stop, two shutdown traps are sent to the destination host. If I then start back up the agent with command /etc/init.d/snmpd start, then two cold start traps are sent to the destination host. Is this a known issue? Is there a fix for this, or is there a configuration change that is needed to prevent the sending of the duplicate trap? These are the contents of the /etc/snmp/snmpd.conf file: rocommunity public authtrapenable 1 trap2sink <trap destination hostname> public These are the contents of the /etc/default/snmpd file: # This file controls the activity of snmpd and snmptrapd # MIB directories. /usr/share/snmp/mibs is the default, but # including it here avoids some strange problems. export MIBDIRS=/usr/share/snmp/mibs # snmpd control (yes means start daemon). SNMPDRUN=yes # snmpd options (use syslog, close stdin/out/err). SNMPDOPTS='-Ls3d -Lf /dev/null -u snmp -p /var/run/snmpd.pid -c /etc/snmp/snmpd.conf' # snmptrapd control (yes means start daemon). As of net-snmp version # 5.0, master agentx support must be enabled in snmpd before snmptrapd # can be run. See snmpd.conf(5) for how to do this. TRAPDRUN=no # snmptrapd options (use syslog). TRAPDOPTS='-Lsd -p /var/run/snmptrapd.pid' # create symlink on Debian legacy location to official RFC path SNMPDCOMPAT=yes

    Read the article

  • Webmaster Tools, www and no-www, duplicate content and subdomains

    - by Jay
    I have not come to any conclusive answers on the following after many hours of research on many websites to the specific issue that I am trying to figure out. My company has two websites a main one at www.example.com and one at subdomain.example.com which is a subdomain of the first and is our self hosted blog. The way Google sees these with the www or no-www (called naked for now on) is that each of these actually are different when the www or naked version is used/not used in the front of the domain. I completely understand this. It is also advised that both should be set up in the Google Webmaster Tools, which I have done. Correct me if I am wrong on that in regard to having both set up. Now the way it appears is that we can set a preferred domain up in Webmaster Tools only at the root domain level. The subdomain can not have this and actually says the following "Restricted to root level domains only". So it appears that the domain should follow what the root domain says which on our preferred one says to display the www.example.com. and not the naked version. That is one issue I have in that one displays one way and the other displays another. Is it that we have the wrong redirects in place for the subdomain? Another question is does this have any affect on SEO in regards to duplicate content on the web in how we have set this up?

    Read the article

  • Remove urls to unidex blog content from google, then copy blogs content to new blog [closed]

    - by sam
    Possible Duplicate: migrating PR / rankings from one site to another Ive been writing a blog for the past yr or so, with about 300 published articles, the blog have been running under a subdomain blog.mysite.com We are no looking to change the url of our site, so the blog is going to have to be ported over to a subdoamin on the new site. We would really like to keep the backlog / archive of all the articles we have written but dont wont to be penalized for having duplicate content, could we just remove / unindex the urls from google in webmaster tools then export the blog and import it back to our new blog ? Would google still see this a duplicate content or becuase ive removed the urls have they no longer got a copy of it ? thanks

    Read the article

  • What was missing from the Content Strategy Forum?

    - by Roger Hart
    In April, Paris hosted the first ever Content Strategy Forum. The event's website proudly proclaims: 170 attendees, 18 nationalities, 17 speakers, 1 volcano... Content Strategy Forum 2010 rocked the world! The volcano was in Iceland, and the closest we came to rocking the world was a cursory mention in the Huffington Post, but I'll grant the event was awesome. One thing missing from that list, however, is "94 companies" (Plus a couple of universities and freelancers, and what have you). A glance through the attendees directory reveals a fairly wide organisational turnout - 24 students from two Parisian universities, countless design and marketing agencies, a series of tech firms, small and large. Two delegates from IBM, two from ARM, an appearance from RIM, Skype, and Facebook; twelve from the various bits of eBay. Oh, and, err, nobody from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon, Play, Twitter, LinkedIn, Craigslist, the BBC, no banks I noticed, and I didn't spot a newspaper. You get the idea. Facebook notwithstanding, you have to scroll through a few pages to Alexa rankings to find company names from the attendee list. I find this interesting, and I'm not wholly sure what to make of it. Of the large, web-centric, content-rich organizations conspicuously absent, at least one of two things is true: They didn't know about the event They didn't care about the event Maybe these guys all have content strategy completely sorted, and it's an utterly naturalised part of their business process. Maybe nobody at say, Apple or Play.com ever publishes a single piece of content that isn't neatly tailored to their (clearly defined, of course) user and business goals. Wouldn't that be lovely? The thing is, in that rosy and beatific world, there's still a case for those folks to join the community. There are bound to be other perspectives, and things to learn. You see, the other thing achingly conspicuous by its absence was case studies. In her keynote address, Kristina Halvorson made the point that what content strategy really needs is some big, loud success stories. A point I'd firmly second as a content strategist working within an organisation. Sarah Cancilla's presentation on content strategy at Facebook included some very neat, specific examples, and was richer for it. It didn't hurt that the example was Facebook - you're getting impressively big numbers off base. What about the other big boys? Is there anybody out there with a perspective? Do we all just look very silly to you, fretting away over text and images and users and purposes? Is content validation and maintenance so accustomed a part of your business that calling attention to it is like sniffing the air and saying "Hmm, a lot of nitrogen about today."? And if it is, do you have any wisdom to share?

    Read the article

  • What is 'lack of original content'?

    - by JVerstry
    It is written everywhere that lack of original content is has a negative impact on ranking. But what is lack of original content? (I am not talking about duplicate content) I guess if you copy other site's content, this makes sense. But, assuming one develops its own functionalities, but similar functionalities are already available on other sites, is this considered lack of original content? Can Google decide to not index such pages (i.e., not give them a chance at all)? Are there other definition of 'lack of original content'?

    Read the article

  • Is content slowing down your business?

    - by Lance Shaw
    We are living in a digital world, however paper is everywhere and expensive, right? We all agree content is an important part of our organization and contribute to its decision making. However many of us see dealing with this as a challenge and the growth of content is impacting our ability to scale and respond quickly to our customers. Business always has been content intensive. For JD Edwards customers, this is an important consideration.  After all, the processes being run in JD Edwards are usually very critical to the success of your business and if they are not running as smoothly as they should due to manual process steps involving paper or searching for content, you should look into improving them.  To that end, we hope you will join this webinar and learn how Oracle and KPIT | SYSTIME have partnered to help a JD Edwards customer content-enable its enterprise with Oracle WebCenter Content and Oracle WebCenter Imaging 11g and integrate them back with JD Edwards to significantly improve processing speed and operational costs.

    Read the article

  • Index page content identical to page 1 of a gallery-type website

    - by WordPress Developer
    I have a gallery type website, e.g. a site that lists blog posts or pictures in a paginated manner. However, I have 2 pages that have identical content: example.com/index.html example.com/page/1 Page 2, 3 and so on have different content naturally. However, for SEO purposes, what is the best way of telling Google that page 1 is identical to index.html? Should I 302 redirect index.html to /page/1 so index.html is non-existent, so to say or should I put a canonical tag in /page/1 (but not on /page/2) that points to index.html?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >