Search Results

Search found 991 results on 40 pages for 'indexed'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 3/40 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Read Committed isolation level, indexed views and locking behavior

    - by Michael Zilberstein
    From BOL, " Key-Range Locking " article: Key-range locks protect a range of rows implicitly included in a record set being read by a Transact-SQL statement while using the serializable transaction isolation level . The serializable isolation level requires that any query executed during a transaction must obtain the same set of rows every time it is executed during the transaction. A key range lock protects this requirement by preventing other transactions from inserting new rows whose...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Mysterious subdomains to my site indexed by Google

    - by shouren
    Stackers, We have an issue with strange subdomains pointing to (pages on) our site such as: www2.example.com 2.example.com anothersite.com.example.com A few things are perplexing: who created them? why they do that? why Google index them and made them appear in the search results when clicking them gets a 5xx error. how can we get rid of them? It seems some type of scams that hurt our site's free search and experience. Anyone had similar experience and knows the answers? Really appreciate it!

    Read the article

  • Google indexed page a day before also reflecting in search but today everything vanish

    - by ganesh
    We had robots.txt which disallow all robots as we were in development. We are live now. We change robots.txt as per our requirement a day before. Submit indexes using Google Webmaster Tools index status. After this we can see proper result in search as well as Google images search was working as expected. Suddenly today all these things vanish from Google Search. Now again I can see old result i.e. under construction message. I checked robots.txt in Google Webmaster Tools, it's ok - no crawling errors. Kindly let me know what exactly happened? How I can inform this issue to Google?

    Read the article

  • Images not indexed by google since moving to cdn

    - by dfunkydog
    Last week I moved all the images on coffeeandvanilla.com to a cdn( maxcdn.coffeeandvanilla.com ). The problem I'm having is that although the sitemap—generated by yoast wordpress seo plugin—points images to the correct location, google only indexes[sic] images from the category and page site maps but 0 images from the posts sitemap( see screenshot https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4635252/sitemap.png ) This website has been doing quite well with google image-search before the change, visits from google image search have dropped from ~200/day to 11 yesterday Here is an example entry from the generated posts.xml sitemap http://pastebin.com/vcMRf9VW Can anyone suggest where the problem lies? Why have I lost all my google image juice? Should I just wait some more, how long before really worrying?

    Read the article

  • How to Get Your Site Indexed Quickly

    Most of the SEO experts advise to buy an existing domain or website. There are lots of age benefits of these old websites. However, buying an existing domain is not always an option. Many times you have to start afresh with a new domain. If you don't know about site indexing, Google may take weeks to index your website.

    Read the article

  • SEO Help with Pages Indexed by Google

    - by Joe Majewski
    I'm working on optimizing my site for Google's search engine, and lately I've noticed that when doing a "site:www.joemajewski.com" query, I get results for pages that shouldn't be indexed at all. Let's take a look at this page, for example: http://www.joemajewski.com/wow/profile.php?id=3 I created my own CMS, and this is simply a breakdown of user id #3's statistics, which I noticed is indexed by Google, although it shouldn't be. I understand that it takes some time before Google's results reflect accurately on my site's content, but this has been improperly indexed for nearly six months now. Here are the precautions that I have taken: My robots.txt file has a line like this: Disallow: /wow/profile.php* When running the url through Google Webmaster Tools, it indicates that I did, indeed, correctly create the disallow command. It did state, however, that a page that doesn't get crawled may still get displayed in the search results if it's being linked to. Thus, I took one more precaution. In the source code I included the following meta data: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" /> I am assuming that follow means to use the page when calculating PageRank, etc, and the noindex tells Google to not display the page in the search results. This page, profile.php, is used to take the $_GET['id'] and find the corresponding registered user. It displays a bit of information about that user, but is in no way relevant enough to warrant a display in the search results, so that is why I am trying to stop Google from indexing it. This is not the only page Google is indexing that I would like removed. I also have a WordPress blog, and there are many category pages, tag pages, and archive pages that I would like removed, and am doing the same procedures to attempt to remove them. Can someone explain how to get pages removed from Google's search results, and possibly some criteria that should help determine what types of pages that I don't want indexed. In terms of my WordPress blog, the only pages that I truly want indexed are my articles. Everything else I have tried to block, with little luck from Google. Can someone also explain why it's bad to have pages indexed that don't provide any new or relevant content, such as pages for WordPress tags or categories, which are clearly never going to receive traffic from Google. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Should this folder called Data be indexed?

    - by panny
    In the indexing options of Windows 7 there is a folder called Data which is excluded from indexing for the C:\ drive by default. Can someone confirm this, please? I was not able to locate that folder on my drive, nor include it in the search index. The difference in number of indexed files is unsatisfying: windows-7 native indexing service:377703 files on six drives; third party desktop search indexing service:698654 files on the same number of drives. Files in UA Control seem not being indexed without proper priviledges. How can this be circumvented?

    Read the article

  • Sudden drop in Total Indexed pages and increase in 'Not Selected' number.

    - by Pravin
    My blog is around 1 year old and have PR2. The average daily pageviews upto last 1 week were 1800. The total number of posts are 180. Though I have only 180 total posts, the total number of Indexed URL was increasing and it was as high as 510. But in the month of Sept2012, the total number of Indexed pages dropped from 510 to 214. The drop was sudden and it is now increasing very slowly. Also, the other main concern is huge increase in 'Not Selected' number. It is currently 814. I have never posted any post again and never copied any idea from any other blog. But I do use internal linking to some older post those are related to the new posts. The questions are:; Why there is sudden drop in the 'Total Indexed' pages. Why there was increase in total indexed pages to 500 even though the total posts were only 180. As the drop in 'Total Indexed' was in the month of sept2012, I was getting same organic traffic and it was steadily increasing till last week and then there was a 50 drop in the total pageviews. Why. Now, again the traffic is becoming to normal but still there is a problem. Is increase in the 'Not selected' number is a cause of drop in 'Total Indexed'? How to prevent or reduce the number of 'Not Selected' even though I do not have any duplicate post withing blog. Is the 'internal linking' to older post creating 'Not selected' problem? Should I edit my 'Robot.txt' to avoid crawling of labes that may be creating duplicate posts or something like that, if so, what is correct robot.txt. I have uploaded the screenshot of the graph of Webmaster Tools. Please take a look and give suggestions. Please help. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Database is Indexed at Apache Solr, How to access it via URL

    - by Wasim
    data-config.xml <dataConfig> <dataSource encoding="UTF-8" type="JdbcDataSource" driver="com.mysql.jdbc.Driver" url="jdbc:mysql://localhost:3306/somevisits" user="root" password=""/> <document name="somevisits"> <entity name="login" query="select * from login"> <field column="sv_id" name="sv_id" /> <field column="sv_username" name="sv_username" /> </entity> </document> </dataConfig> schema.xml <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <schema name="example" version="1.5"> <fields> <field name="sv_id" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" required="true" multiValued="false" /> <field name="username" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" required="true"/> <field name="_version_" type="long" indexed="true" stored="true" multiValued="false"/> <field name="text" type="string" indexed="true" stored="false" multiValued="true"/> </fields> <uniqueKey>sv_id</uniqueKey> <types> <fieldType name="string" class="solr.StrField" sortMissingLast="true" /> <fieldType name="long" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="0" positionIncrementGap="0"/> </types> </schema> Solr successfully imported mysql database using full http://[localSolr]:8983/solr/#/collection1/dataimport?command=full-import My question is, how to access that mysql imported database now?

    Read the article

  • Google Indexed an Unlinked Page

    - by Yar
    Google indexed a page on a site of mine that was not linked from any other page, ever. No one has ever put a link to it, and the directory contents were not browsable. How could this happen? I thought crawlers have no way to include a page that is not linked.

    Read the article

  • "this network location can't be included because it is not indexed" on Windows 2008R2 Remote Desktop

    - by crgnz
    I'm setting up a new terminal server for our users on Win2008R2 (I guess I should call it Remote Desktop Services now!) When I try to change the location of "Documents" (by removing the default Documents library and adding a new one), to use the file server ie \\fileserver\username\Documents I get the message: "This network location can't be included because it is not indexed" I certainly don't want to make folders available offline, and in fact, I have set the GPO to prohibit offline folders on the terminal servers. What is the best practice for document libraries on terminal server and network file shares?

    Read the article

  • Google API to check number of indexed pages?

    - by Probocop
    Is there a Google API similar to Yahoo and Bing's API's to check for the number of indexed pages on a specified domain? For example, for Yahoo if I type in the following URL: http://search.yahooapis.com/SiteExplorerService/V1/pageData?appid=MTSlade&query=http://www.dave-sellers.co.uk&domain_only=1&results=1 Then it will return some XML detailing the number of pages indexed as 'totalResultsAvailable' Any idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Many Stack Overflow users' pages have no Google PageRank and they are not indexed, why?

    - by Marco Demaio
    If you go to my user page on Stack Overflow and you check it with the Google Toolbar, you can see it has no PageRank at all (this does happen for almost any user page, even people with much higher reputation, the only exceptions seem to be the users in page 1, and some other users they have PR). My user page's Page Rank is not only zero, but not calculated at all. When PR is 0 or less than 1, but calculated the Google bar shows white, but when the PR is not even calculated like in my user page the Google bar shows in grey. I further more discovered that my user page is NOT EVEN INDEXED on Google, simple test is searching on Google for the exact page url: "http://stackoverflow.com/users/260080/marco-demaio" and you will see no result. The question is how can this be??? This is really weird to me because of the following reason: If you search on Google for "Marco Demaio" on Stack Overflow only (you can do this by searching "site:stackoverflow.com Marco Demaio") the search result shows hundreds of 'asking/answering questions' pages where I was 'tagged'!!! Let's check one of these: the 1st one that appears now (shows one of the question I asked). We can be sure this page is indexed in Google because comes out in a search. Moreover, its PR is calculated. It's probably nearly zero. Still, some PR flows there, the PR bar is not grey, but white: The page shown above has got links to my own user page. I checked the source code of the page shown above and the links are not hidden or set with a rel="nofollow", moreover I can't see any meta character excluding the links on the page from being followed. So what's happening? Why Google does not see my user page at all. Did Stack Overflow do something to achieve this? If yes what did they do? Any explanation really appreciates (as always). P.S. obviously I checked also the code of my user page, but I could not find meta tags excluding Google search for the page. P.S. 2 in a desperate adventure I also checked Stack Overflow's robots.txt but it does not seem to exclude user pages. UPDATE 1 following up on some answers, I did some more research. Excluding for a while the PR problem (since PR is not science), and looking only at the user page on Stack Overflow NOT BEING INDEXED problem: pages do not seem to be indexed by Google because of the user reputation, this user for instance has got NOW 200 points less reputation than me and his page is indexed (while mine not). It does not seem even to be connected with months you have been on Stack Overflow, this user (almost my same reputation) has been there for 3 months only and his page is indexed (while mine not and I have been a user for 7 months). It's bizarre! UPDATE February/2011 As of today, the page got indexed by Google at least when you search for "site:stackoverflow.com Marco Demaio" it's the 1st page. The amazing thing is that it has still got NO PageRank at all: Google toolbar states loud and clear "No PageRank information available". It's odd!

    Read the article

  • SEO: many stackoverflow users' pages have got no Google PR and they are not indexed, why?

    - by Marco Demaio
    If you go to my user page on Stack Overflow and you check it with the Gogle bar you can see has got no PR at all (this does happen for almost any user page, even people with much higher reputation, the only exceptions seem to be the users in page 1, and some other users they have PR). My user page's Page Rank is not only zero, but not calculated at all. When PR is 0 or less than 1, but calculated the Google bar shows white, but when the PR is not even calculated like in my user page the Google bar shows in grey. I further more discovered that my user page is NOT EVEN INDEXED on Google, simple test is searching on Google for the exact page url: "http://stackoverflow.com/users/260080/marco-demaio" and you will see no result. The question is how can this be??? This is really weird to me because of the following reason: If you search on Google for "Marco Demaio" on stackoverflow site only (you can do this by searching "site:stackoverflow.com Marco Demaio") the search result shows hundreds of 'asking/answering questions' pages where I was 'tagged'!!! Let's check one of these: the 1st one that appears now (shows one of the question I asked). We can be sure this page is indexed in Google because comes out in a search moreover its PR is calculated, it's probably nearly zero, but still some PR flows there, the PR bar is not grey, but white: The page shown above has got links to my own user page. I checked the source code of the page shown above and the links are not hidden or set with a rel="nofollow", moreover I can't see any meta character excluding the links on the page from being followed. So what's happening? Why Google does not see my user page at all. Did stackoverflow do something to achieve this? If yes what did they do? Any explantion really appreciates (as always). P.S. obviously I checked also the code of my user page, but I could not find meta tags excluding Google search for the page. P.S. 2 in a desperate adventure I also checked StackOverflow robots but it does not seem to exclude user pages. UPDATE 1 following up on some answers, I did some more research. Excluding for a while the PR problem (since PR is not science), and looking only at the user page on StackOverflow NOT BEING INDEXED problem: pages do not seem to be indexed by Google because of the user reputation, this user for instance has got NOW 200 points less reputation than me and his page is indexed (while mine not). It does not seem even to be connected with months you have been on Stackoverflow, this user (almost my same reputation) has been there for 3 months only and his page is indexed (while mine not and I have been a user for 7 months). It's bizzarre! UPDATE February/2011 As of today the page got indexed by Google at least when you search for "site:stackoverflow.com Marco Demaio" it's the 1st page. The amazing thing is that it has still got NO PageRank at all: Google toolbar states loud and clear "No PageRank information available". It's odd!

    Read the article

  • Always-indexed MySQL indexing/searching replacements for InnoDB?

    - by Chad Johnson
    I am using InnoDB for a MySQL table, and obviously queries using LIKE and RLIKE/REGEXP can take a lot of time. I've tried Spinx, and it works great, except I have to re-index context at intervals. I can re-index every minute, but I am wondering if there is either 1) a setting in Sphinx to keep records always indexed or 2) other software besides Sphinx that will keep records always indexed. I want it where that immediately upon inserting or updating a record, the index is updated.

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 search does not return results from indexed folders

    - by Dilbert
    I am experiencing this issue over and over again and I just cannot seem to find the answer. It doesn't make sense, but search simply does not return results from folders that certainly have these files inside. It's weird that this technology exists for more than 5 years now (it could be added to Windows XP as an addon), and they still haven't got it right. My folder contains 10 image files with .png extensions. Two scenarios: Scenario 1: I exclude the folder using Indexing options. Search works. Scenario 2: I turn on indexing for this folder. Search does not work. Of course, Agent Ransack returns results every time. When I check Advanced options for the Indexing options inside control panel, .png files are checked in the File Types tab, using the "File Properties filter". What's the deal with this? [Edit] To clarify, this doesn't happen with all folders, but does with more than one. For the "problematic" folders, even *.* doesn't return a single result. I found some advice to clear the archive and readonly attributes for all files (doesn't make sense, but hey), but it didn't work. Indexing status in Control panel is: Indexing complete. 100,000 items indexed. Folder is included in the list. File types list contains the .png extension (although it doesn't work with any filter, not even *.*).

    Read the article

  • Remove undesired indexed keywords from Sql Server FTS Index

    - by Scott
    Could anyone tell me if SQL Server 2008 has a way to prevent keywords from being indexed that aren't really relevant to the types of searches that will be performed? For example, we have the IFilters for PDF and Word hooked in and our documents are being indexed properly as far as I can tell. These documents, however, have lots of numeric values in them that people won't really be searching for or bring back meaningful results. These are still being indexed and creating lots of entries in the full text catalog. Basically we are trying to optimize our search engine in any way we can and assumed all these unnecessary entries couldn't be helping performance. I want my catalog to consist of alphabetic keywords only. The current iFilters work better than I would be able to write in the time I have but it just has more than I need. This is an example of some of the terms from sys.dm_fts_index_keywords_by_document that I want out: $1,000, $100, $250, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 129, 13.1, 14, 14.12, 145, 15, 16.2, 16.4, 18, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5 These are some examples from the same management view that I think are desirable for keeping and searching on: above, accordingly, accounts, add, addition, additional, additive Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Bidirectional one-to-many associations with indexed collections in NHibernate

    - by Jørn Schou-Rode
    Last summer, I asked a question regarding how to add new object to an IList mapped as a one-to-many with NHibernate. One of the answers let me to this paragraph in the documentation: Please note that NHibernate does not support bidirectional one-to-many associations with an indexed collection (list, map or array) as the "many" end, you have to use a set or bag mapping. While I am pretty sure I understand what this paragraph says, I have no idea why or how to work around this limitation. As I am now again working with a model that seems to require a "bidirectional one-to-many association with an index collection", I figured the time was right for follow-up questions: Why does NHibernate have this limitation on associations? It is my impression that the guys behind NHibernate are quite clever, so I assume there is a pretty good reason. What are the common workarounds for this shortcoming? Making the collection a non-indexed bag and adding an explicit Position property to the child class? Any better solutions?

    Read the article

  • How to handle existing indexed Mixed Case url's?

    - by marcusstarnes
    I have an asp.net web forms application that has been live for a number of years and as such has quite a lot of indexed content on google. Ideally, I'd prefer that all Url's for the website are in lowercase but I understand that having 2 versions of the same content indexed in search engines (MixedCase.aspx and mixedcase.aspx) will be bad for seo. I was wondering: a) Should I just leave everything in its current Mixed Case form and never change it? OR b) I can change the code so everything is in lowercase from here on in, BUT, is there a way of doing this so as the search engines are aware of this change and don't penalise me?

    Read the article

  • Indexed key vs indexed separate columns, which one is faster ?

    - by Jerry
    In MYSQL, from a pure performance perspective, if I have a table with large amount of data with 10/1 read/write ratio. is it faster in read/write performance to have 4 search criteria in separate columns and all indexed or have them combined in to one single string acting as a key and store in one indexed column ? e.g. say this table with 5 columns, first name, last name, sex, country and file where the first four columns will ALWAYS be given as a part of search parameters in a search or have a table with two columns, key and file. where the value of key can be john-smith-male-australia ?? I don't quite get the pros and cons. the point I try to stress is the fact that all parameters will be given.in a search.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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