Search Results

Search found 13160 results on 527 pages for 'response redirect'.

Page 34/527 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

  • Redirect/rewrite dynamic URL to sub-domain and create DNS for subdomain

    - by Abdul Majeed
    I have created an application in PHP, I would like to re-direct the following URL to corresponding sub-domain. Dynamic URL pattern: http://mydomain.com/mypage.php?user_name=testuser I wish to re-direct this to the corresponding sub domain: http://testuser.mydomain.com/ How do I create a rewrite rule for this purpose? How do I register DNS for sub-domain without using CPANEL? (I want to activate sub-domain when the user registers to the system.)

    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

  • Rebuilt website from static html to CMS need to redirect indexed links

    - by Michael Dunn
    I have rebuilt a website which was all created with static html pages, it has now been rebuilt using a CMS system. I need to find a way of redirecting all the existing links to there new corresponding pages which utilise friendly URL rewrites on the CMS based website I imagine there will be several hundred if not 1000s as i have pages and images linked from google. What is the most efficient way to complete this Thanks in advance Mike

    Read the article

  • IIS7 Windows Server 2008 FTP -> Response: 530 User cannot log in

    - by RSolberg
    I just launched my first IIS FTP site following many of the tutorials from IIS.NET... I'm using IIS Users and Permissions rather than anonymous and/or basic. This is what I'm seeing while trying to establish the connection... Status: Resolving address of ftp.mydomain.com Status: Connecting to ###.###.##.###:21... Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Response: 220 Microsoft FTP Service Command: USER MyFTPUser Response: 331 Password required for MyFTPUser. Command: PASS ******************** Response: 530 User cannot log in. Error: Critical error Error: Could not connect to server

    Read the article

  • Oracle Response to Apache Departure from JCP

    - by Henrik Ståhl
    Last month Oracle renominated Apache to the Java Executive Committee because we valued their active participation and perspective on Java. Earlier this week, by an overwhelming majority, the Java Executive Committee voted to move Java forward by formally initiating work on both Java SE 7 and SE 8 based on their technical merits. Apache voted against initiating technical committee work on both SE 7 and SE 8, effectively voting against moving Java forward. Now, despite supporting the technical direction, Apache have announced that they are quitting the Executive Committee. Oracle has a responsibility to move Java forward and to maintain the uniformity of the Java standard for the millions of Java developers and the majority of Executive Committee members agree. We encourage Apache to reconsider its position and remain a part of the process to move Java forward. ASF and many open source projects within it are an important part of the overall Java ecosystem. Adam Messinger, Vice President of Development

    Read the article

  • Sliding collision response

    - by dbostream
    I have been reading plenty of tutorials about sliding collision responses yet I am not able to implement it properly in my project. What I want to do is make a puck slide along the rounded corner boards of a hockey rink. In my latest attempt the puck does slide along the boards but there are some strange velocity behaviors. First of all the puck slows down a lot pretty much right away and then it slides for awhile and stops before exiting the corner. Even if I double the speed I get a similar behavior and the puck does not make it out of the corner. I used some ideas from this document http://www.peroxide.dk/papers/collision/collision.pdf. This is what I have: Update method called from the game loop when it is time to update the puck (I removed some irrelevant parts). I use two states (current, previous) which are used to interpolate the position during rendering. public override void Update(double fixedTimeStep) { /* Acceleration is set to 0 for now. */ Acceleration.Zero(); PreviousState = CurrentState; _collisionRecursionDepth = 0; CurrentState.Position = SlidingCollision(CurrentState.Position, CurrentState.Velocity * fixedTimeStep + 0.5 * Acceleration * fixedTimeStep * fixedTimeStep); /* Should not this be affected by a sliding collision? and not only the position. */ CurrentState.Velocity = CurrentState.Velocity + Acceleration * fixedTimeStep; Heading = Vector2.NormalizeRet(CurrentState.Velocity); } private Vector2 SlidingCollision(Vector2 position, Vector2 velocity) { if(_collisionRecursionDepth > 5) return position; bool collisionFound = false; Vector2 futurePosition = position + velocity; Vector2 intersectionPoint = new Vector2(); Vector2 intersectionPointNormal = new Vector2(); /* I did not include the collision detection code, if a collision is detected the intersection point and normal in that point is returned. */ if(!collisionFound) return futurePosition; /* If no collision was detected it is safe to move to the future position. */ /* It is not exactly the intersection point, but slightly before. */ Vector2 newPosition = intersectionPoint; /* oldVelocity is set to the distance from the newPosition(intersection point) to the position it had moved to had it not collided. */ Vector2 oldVelocity = futurePosition - newPosition; /* Project the distance left to move along the intersection normal. */ Vector2 newVelocity = oldVelocity - intersectionPointNormal * oldVelocity.DotProduct(intersectionPointNormal); if(newVelocity.LengthSq() < 0.001) return newPosition; /* If almost no speed, no need to continue. */ _collisionRecursionDepth++; return SlidingCollision(newPosition, newVelocity); } What am I doing wrong with the velocity? I have been staring at this for very long so I have gone blind. I have tried different values of recursion depth but it does not seem to make it better. Let me know if you need more information. I appreciate any help. EDIT: A combination of Patrick Hughes' and teodron's answers solved the velocity problem (I think), thanks a lot! This is the new code: I decided to use a separate recursion method now too since I don't want to recalculate the acceleration in each recursion. public override void Update(double fixedTimeStep) { Acceleration.Zero();// = CalculateAcceleration(fixedTimeStep); PreviousState = new MovingEntityState(CurrentState.Position, CurrentState.Velocity); CurrentState = SlidingCollision(CurrentState, fixedTimeStep); Heading = Vector2.NormalizeRet(CurrentState.Velocity); } private MovingEntityState SlidingCollision(MovingEntityState state, double timeStep) { bool collisionFound = false; /* Calculate the next position given no detected collision. */ Vector2 futurePosition = state.Position + state.Velocity * timeStep; Vector2 intersectionPoint = new Vector2(); Vector2 intersectionPointNormal = new Vector2(); /* I did not include the collision detection code, if a collision is detected the intersection point and normal in that point is returned. */ /* If no collision was detected it is safe to move to the future position. */ if (!collisionFound) return new MovingEntityState(futurePosition, state.Velocity); /* Set new position to the intersection point (slightly before). */ Vector2 newPosition = intersectionPoint; /* Project the new velocity along the intersection normal. */ Vector2 newVelocity = state.Velocity - 1.90 * intersectionPointNormal * state.Velocity.DotProduct(intersectionPointNormal); /* Calculate the time of collision. */ double timeOfCollision = Math.Sqrt((newPosition - state.Position).LengthSq() / (futurePosition - state.Position).LengthSq()); /* Calculate new time step, remaining time of full step after the collision * current time step. */ double newTimeStep = timeStep * (1 - timeOfCollision); return SlidingCollision(new MovingEntityState(newPosition, newVelocity), newTimeStep); } Even though the code above seems to slide the puck correctly please have a look at it. I have a few questions, if I don't multiply by 1.90 in the newVelocity calculation it doesn't work (I get a stack overflow when the puck enters the corner because the timeStep decreases very slowly - a collision is found early in every recursion), why is that? what does 1.90 really do and why 1.90? Also I have a new problem, the puck does not move parallell to the short side after exiting the curve; to be more exact it moves outside the rink (I am not checking for any collisions with the short side at the moment). When I perform the collision detection I first check that the puck is in the correct quadrant. For example bottom-right corner is quadrant four i.e. circleCenter.X < puck.X && circleCenter.Y puck.Y is this a problem? or should the short side of the rink be the one to make the puck go parallell to it and not the last collision in the corner? EDIT2: This is the code I use for collision detection, maybe it has something to do with the fact that I can't make the puck slide (-1.0) but only reflect (-2.0): /* Point is the current position (not the predicted one) and quadrant is 4 for the bottom-right corner for example. */ if (GeometryHelper.PointInCircleQuadrant(circleCenter, circleRadius, state.Position, quadrant)) { /* The line is: from = state.Position, to = futurePosition. So a collision is detected when from is inside the circle and to is outside. */ if (GeometryHelper.LineCircleIntersection2d(state.Position, futurePosition, circleCenter, circleRadius, intersectionPoint, quadrant)) { collisionFound = true; /* Set the intersection point to slightly before the real intersection point (I read somewhere this was good to do because of floting point precision, not sure exactly how much though). */ intersectionPoint = intersectionPoint - Vector2.NormalizeRet(state.Velocity) * 0.001; /* Normal at the intersection point. */ intersectionPointNormal = Vector2.NormalizeRet(circleCenter - intersectionPoint) } } When I set the intersection point, if I for example use 0.1 instead of 0.001 the puck travels further before it gets stuck, but for all values I have tried (including 0 - the real intersection point) it gets stuck somewhere (but I necessarily not get a stack overflow). Can something in this part be the cause of my problem? I can see why I get the stack overflow when using -1.0 when calculating the new velocity vector; but not how to solve it. I traced the time steps used in the recursion (initial time step is always 1/60 ~ 0.01666): Recursion depth Time step next recursive call [Start recursion, time step ~ 0.016666] 0 0,000985806527246773 [No collision, stop recursion] [Start recursion, time step ~ 0.016666] 0 0,0149596704364629 1 0,0144883449376379 2 0,0143155612984837 3 0,014224925727213 4 0,0141673917461608 5 0,0141265435314026 6 0,0140953966184117 7 0,0140704653746625 ...and so on. As you can see the collision is detected early in every recursive call which means the next time step decreases very slowly thus the recursion depth gets very big - stack overflow.

    Read the article

  • Robots.txt practices with .htaccess redirections (inherits)

    - by Jayhal
    I have a question regarding how to write robots.txt files for many domains and subdomains with redirects in place. We have a hosting account that enacts primary and add-on domains. All of our domains and subdomains, including the primary domain, is redirected via htaccess 301s to their own subdirectories in the primary domain's root directory. I'm confused about how I would write the robots.txt for certain directories. First, I wanted to confirm I am right in understanding that for domains and subdomains, crawlers will look to the directory that acts as that urls root directory for the crawling rules(robots.txt). Also, that a directory will not be affected by a robots.txt present in their parent directory if the directory has its own domain/subdomain, and that url is the one being accessed by crawlers. (Am pretty sure, but I wanted to confirm I didnt have a fundamentally flawed understanding of robots.txt) In the original root directory on the account(where the primary domain was directed before htaccess was put in place) what should the robots.txt contain? When crawlers look to crawl our primary domain, will they look to the original root directory for the robots.txt or will they reference the file contained in the new subdirectory where all the primary domain's site files are located? If so, what should the root's robot.txt include if anything at all. Would I be right to include a simple 'disallow: /' for all agents, and then include more specific robots.txt files in each subdirectory with more specific instructions. Would that affect the crawling of the directory where the primary domain is now redirected? Any help is greatly appreciated, Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why rewrite directive causes "301 Moved Permanently" with Nginx?

    - by Desmond Hume
    Below is a much simplified version of what I have in the configuration file of a server run by Nginx 1.2.5, yet it causes 301 Moved Permanently with Location: http://example.com/phpmyadmin/ before serving data, which is not what I expected from the default behavior of the rewrite directive. server { listen 80; location /pma { rewrite ^ /phpmyadmin; } location /phpmyadmin { root /var/www; index Documentation.html; } } When I follow http://example.com/pma, the data is served but the URL in the browser is changed to http://example.com/phpmyadmin/ while it was supposed to stay http://example.com/pma. How do I avoid Nginx sending 301 Moved Permanently so that it doesn't expose the actual directory structure on my server?

    Read the article

  • GWT: reporting crawling errors for non existing links

    - by pixeline
    Google Webmaster Tools is reporting crawl errors for links that never existed, and if i check the "Linked from" tab for a given error link, it shows another that never existed. They all mention joomla/ which is not the cms used on this domain (it's wordpress fyi). Exampled: http://example.com/joomla/index.php/component/user/register Linked from: http://example.com/joomla/component/user/login?return=L2###### What is going on? UPDATE 1 I tried something: I provided one of the faulty urls to the "Fetch as Google" functionality. Instead of returning a 404, it returns a 301 to another Joomla page. HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Server: Apache/2.4.3 X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.4-10 X-Pingback: http://example.com/xmlrpc.php Expires: Wed, 11 Jan 1984 05:00:00 GMT Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate, max-age=0 Pragma: no-cache Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=1fgr5v2oip39miibuptd51s8h0; path=/ Set-Cookie: woocommerce_items_in_cart=0; expires=Sat, 12-Jan-2013 11:44:01 GMT; path=/ Location: http://example.com/joomla/component/user/register Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 387 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:44:01 GMT Via: 1.1 varnish Connection: keep-alive Accept-Ranges: bytes Age: 0 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> </head><body> <h1>Moved Permanently</h1> <p>The document has moved <a href="http://example.com/joomla/component/user/register">here</a>.</p> <p>Additionally, a 301 Moved Permanently error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.</p> </body></html>

    Read the article

  • URL Rewrite 2.0 Performance

    - by The Official Microsoft IIS Site
    Do performance work it is easy when you have the right tools for measuring gains or lost. I will share some thoughts about how to improve performance during rewriting, but please keep in mind that any change you do must be well thought and with performance Read More......( read more ) Read More......(read more)

    Read the article

  • Timeout Considerations for Solicit Response

    - by Michael Stephenson
    Background One of the clients I work with had been experiencing some issues for a while surrounding web service timeouts.  It's been a little challenging to work through the problems due to limitations in the diagnostic information available from one of the applications, but I learned some interesting things while troubleshooting the problem which don't seem to have been discussed much in the community so I thought I'd share my findings. In the scenario we have BizTalk trying to make calls to a .net web service which was exposed as a WSE 2 endpoint.  In the process BizTalk will try to make a large number of concurrent web service calls to the application, and the backend application has more than enough infrastructure and capability to handle the load. We have configured the <ConnectionManagement> section of the BizTalk configuration file to support up to 100 concurrent connections from each of our 2 BizTalk send servers to the web servers of the application. The problem we were facing was that the BizTalk side was reporting a significant number of timeouts when calling the web service.   One of the biggest issues was the challenge of being able to correlate a message from BizTalk to the IIS log in the .net application and the custom logs in the application especially when there was a fairly large number of servers hosting the web services.  However the key moment came when we were able to identify a specific call which had taken 40 seconds to execute on the server (yes a long time I know but that's a different story!).  Anyway we were able to identify that this had timed out on the BizTalk side.  Based on the normal 2 minute timeout we knew something unexpected was going on. From here I decided to do some experimentation and I wanted to start outside of BizTalk because my hunch was this was not a BizTalk behaviour but something which was being highlighted by BizTalk because of our large load.     Server-side - Sample Web Service To begin with I created a sample web service.  Nothing special just a vanilla asmx web service hosted in IIS6 on Windows 2003 Standard Edition.  The web service is just a hello world style web service as shown in the below picture.  The only key feature is that the server side web method has a 30 second sleep in it and will trace out some information before and after the thread is set to sleep.      In the configuration for this web service there again is nothing special it's pretty much the most plain simple web service you could build. Client-Side To begin looking at what was happening with our example I created a number of different ways to consume the web service. SoapHttpClientProtocol Example I created a small application which would use a normal proxy generated to call the web service.  It would iterate around a loop and make calls using the begin/end methods so I can do this asynchronously.  I would do a loop of 20 calls with the ConnectionManager configuration section supporting only 5 concurrent connections to the server.     <connectionManagement> <remove address="*"/> <add address = "*" maxconnection = "12" /> <add address = "http://<ServerName>" maxconnection = "5" />                         </connectionManagement> </system.net>     The below picture shows an example of the service calling code, key points are: I have configured the timeout of 40 seconds for the proxy I am using the asynchronous methods on the proxy to call the web service         The Test I would run the client and execute 21 calls to the web service.   The Results  Below is the client side trace showing what's happening on the client. In the below diagram is the web service side trace showing what's happening on the server Some observations on the results are: All of the calls were successful from the clients perspective You could see the next call starting on the server as soon as the previous one had completed Calls took significantly longer than 40 seconds from the start of our call to the return. In fact call 20 took 2 minutes and 30 seconds from the perspective of my code to execute even though I had set the timeout to 40 seconds     WSE 2 Sample In the second example I used the exact same code to call the web service again with a single exception that I modified the web service proxy to derive from WebServiceClient protocol which is part of WSE 2 (using SP3).  The below picture shows the basic code and the key points are: I have configured the timeout of 40 seconds for the proxy I am using the asynchronous methods on the proxy to call the web service        The Test This test would execute 21 calls from the client to the web service.   The Results  The below trace is from the client side: The below trace is from the server side:   Some observations on the trace results for this scenario are: With call 4 if you look at the server side trace it did not start executing on the server for a number of seconds after the other 4 initial calls which were accepted by the server. I re-ran the test and this happened a couple of times and not on most others so at this point I'm just putting this down to something unexpected happening on the development machine and we will leave this observation out of scope of this article. You can see that the client side trace statement executed almost immediately in all cases All calls after the initial few calls would timeout On the client side the calls that did timeout; timed out in a longer duration than the 40 seconds we set as the timeout You can see that as calls were completing on the server the next calls were starting to come through The calls that timed out on the client did actually connect to the server and their server side execution completed successfully     Elaboration on the findings Based on the above observations I have drawn the below sequence diagram to illustrate conceptually what is happening.  Everything except the final web service object is on the client side of the call. In the diagram below I've put two notes on the Web Service Proxy to show the two different places where the different base classes seem to start their timeout counters. From the earlier samples we can work out that the timeout counter for the WSE web service proxy starts before the one for the SoapHttpClientProtocol proxy and the WSE one includes the time to get a connection from the pool; whereas the Soap proxy timeout just covers the method execution. One interesting observation is if we rerun the above sample and increase the number of calls from 21 to 100,000 then for the WSE sample we will see a similar pattern where everything after the first few calls will timeout on the client as soon as it makes a connection to the server whereas the soap proxy will happily plug away and process all of the calls without a single timeout. I have actually set the sample running overnight and this did happen. At this point you are probably thinking the same thoughts I was at the time about the differences in behaviour and which is right and why are they different? I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to this in the documentation, or at least not that I could find! I think you just have to consider that they are different and they could have different effects depending on your messaging solution. In lots of situations this is just not an issue as your concurrent requests doesn't get to the situation where you end up throttling the web service calls on the client side, however this is definitely more common with an integration broker such as BizTalk where you often have high throughput requirements.  Some of the considerations you should make Based on this behaviour you should be aware of the following: In a .net application if you are making lots of concurrent web service calls from an application in an asynchronous manner your user may thing they are experiencing poor performance but you think your web service is working well. The problem could be that the client will have a default of 2 connections to remote servers so you should bear this in mind When you are developing a BizTalk solution or a .net solution with the WSE 2 stack you may experience timeouts under load and throttling the number of connections using the max connections element in the configuration file will not help you For an application using WSE2 or SoapHttpClientProtocol an expired timeout will not throw an error until after a connection to the server has been made so you should consider this in your transaction and durability patterns     Our Work Around In the short term for our specific scenario we know that we can handle this by just increasing our timeout value.  There is only a specific small window when we get lots of concurrent traffic that causes this scenario so we should be able to increase the timeout to take into consideration the additional client side wait, and on the odd occasion where we do get a timeout the BizTalk send port retry will handle this. What was causing our original problem was that for that short window we were getting a lot of retries which significantly increased the load on our send servers and highlighted the issue.  Longer Term Solution As a longer term solution this really gives us more ammunition to argue a migration to WCF. The application we are calling has some factors which limit the protocols we can use but with WCF we would have more control on the various timeout options because in WCF you can configure specific parts of the timeout. Summary I've had this blog post on my to do list for ages but hopefully it will be useful to some people to just understand this behaviour and to possibly help you with some performance issues you may have. I do not believe there is too much in the way of documentation particularly around WSE2 and ASMX in this area so again another bit of ammunition for migrating to WCF. I'll try to do a follow up post with the sample for WCF to show how this changes things.

    Read the article

  • What are some best practices for cookie based web authentication?

    - by rdasxy
    I'm working on a small side project using CGI and Python (scalability is not an issue and it needs to be a VERY simple system. I was thinking of implementing authentication using cookies, and was wondering if there were any established best practices. When the user successfully authenticates, I want to use cookies to figure out who is logged on. What, according to the best practices, should be stored in such a cookie?

    Read the article

  • AABB > AABB collision response?

    - by Levi
    I'm really confused about how to fix this in 3d? I want it so that I can slide along cubes but without getting caught if there's 2 adjacent cubes. I've gotten it so that I can do x collision, with sliding, and y, and z, but I can't do them together, probably because I don't know how to resolve it correctly. e.g. [] [] []^ []O [] O is the player, ^ is the direction the player is moving, with the methods which I was trying I would get stuck between the cubes because the z axis was responding and kicking me out :/. I don't know how to resolve this in all 3 direction, like how would I go about telling which direction I have to resolve in. My previous methods involved me checking 4 points in a axis aligned square around the player, I was checking if these points where inside the cubes and if they where fixing my position, but I couldn't get it working correctly. Help is appreciated. edit: pretend all the blocks are touching.

    Read the article

  • Redirect from https://mydomain.com to http://mydomain.com

    - by Charlie
    Many of my visitors have bookmarked my site already wtih https://mydomain.com. Under the bad advice of a programmer, I put my whole Joomla site under ssl. I do not sell anything or provide any member services. I asked him many times if it would slow my site down - he said it wouldn't. I knew it did, I've researched on this site and realized it does slow the site down because of no cache of the pages. Understood. Please, someone tell me how to get away from it now. I'm not sure how to approach this, should I add something to my htaccess or my main index.php file? I've looked all over the net, there is much advice for adding redirectives for going from http to https, but very few answers regarding the opposite of going from https to http. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Ranking hit after WP site migration

    - by Ben
    I migrated my site from its old domain over a month ago. I followed WMT completely, including 301 redirects from every existing URL to the new domain, and then submitting a change of address. Traffic continued as normal, but then a few days after submitting the change of address traffic plummeted to about 20-30% of what it was previously. Most of my traffic come from organic search, and I can see that for the keywords I had targeted before and performed well with and am now ranking much much lower for. In some cases for low competition keywords I've only lost a few places, for higher competition terms I have really suffered. This has started to pick up a bit (one of my keywords I have risen from 195 to 100 in the last week), but it seems to be a very slow process. How seamless is this process normally? I was under the impression that this would not affect my rankings too severely, but it has now been a month since the move and recovery seems to be very slow, if at all. Is it likely that I've missed something? The only change is that I have moved what was the home page to be more of a sub-page, and now in its place is a magazine-style home page. I understand that links to the old site will now be pointing to the latter which means that rankings for some keywords attributed to the old home page will take a hit, but even on other pages that seem to fit in exactly the same page structure as the previous site I have seen a drop in rankings. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • web.config to redirect except some given IPs

    - by Alvin
    I'm looking for a web.config which is equivalent as the .htaccess file below. <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{REMOTE_HOST} !^123\.123\.123\.123 RewriteCond %{REMOTE_HOST} !^321\.321\.321\.321 RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/coming-soon\.html$ RewriteRule (.*)$ /coming-soon.html [R=302,L] </IfModule> Which redirects everyone to a coming soon page except for the given IPs. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with IIS. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Disk Response Time in Windows 7 Resource Monitor?

    - by Keith Nicholas
    In the resource monitor I'am looking at the disk response time. There are a lot of processes where the response time is thousands of milliseconds consistently, I'm pretty sure this is the source of my computer slowing down. I'm not sure what normal response times are though? I'm running win 7 64bit ultimate. This is running on a new computer, i5 with a terabyte drive, 4gigs of ram, etc, disk is still pretty much empty, so it should all be pretty snappy. And if it is going really slow, how do I track down whats causing it? I've turned off things like real time virus protection as experiments to see if there is something weird there, but makes no real difference (other than it doesn't contribute to the problem by accessing the disk)

    Read the article

  • Website restyle, SEO migration plan?

    - by Goboozo
    I am currently in a project for one of my biggest clients. We have built a website that will -replace- the old website. When it comes to actual content its is largely the same. However, the presentation of the content has changed drastically. From our point of view much more user-friendly (main reason to update the site). Now, since the sites presentation has changed we have some major changes in: HTML & CSS: To change the presentation of the content URL's: To make them better understandable (301 redirects have been taken care of and are in place) Breadcrumbs: To enhance the navigation (we have made the breadcrumbs match exactly with the url's) Pagination: This was added to enable content browsing Title tags: Added descriptive title tags to the major links and buttons. Basically all user content including meta tags have remained the same. Now since this company is rather successful and 90% of its clients come from Google's organic results I am obliged to take all necessary precautions. People tell me I need a migration plan to prevent the site being hurt in Google, but I have never worked using such a plan... ...So, based on the above. Would you consider a migration plan necessary and what precautions/actions would you recommend to prevent us being put down in our SERP positions? Many thanks in advance for your answers.

    Read the article

  • Filtering content from response body HTML (mod_security or other WAFs)

    - by Bingo Star
    We have Apache on Linux with mod_security as the Web App Firewall (WAF) layer. To prevent content injections, we have some rules that basically disable a page containing some text patterns from showing up at all. For example, if an HTML page on webserver has slur words (because some webmaster may have copied/pasted text without proofreading) the Apache server throws a 406 error. Our requirement now is a little different: we would like to show the page as regular 200, but if such a pattern is matched, we want to strip out the offending content. Not block the entire page. If we had a server side technology we could easily code for this, but sadly this is for a website with 1000s of static html pages. Another solution might have been to do a cronjob of find/replace strings and run them on folders en-masse, maybe, but we don't have access to the file system in this case (different department). We do have control over WAF or Apache rules if any. Any pointers or creative ideas?

    Read the article

  • Removing existing filtered pages from Google's index: noindex / 301 / canonical to non-filtered page?

    - by Noam
    I've decided to remove some of my site's pages from the Google index to focus more of the indexed pages on higher quality pages. The pages I'm going to remove are already in the index. These removed pages are filtered pages which will continue to exist, I just don't want them in the google index because they add little quality to the same page without any filter selected. I've added in webmaster tools specification of narrow for the parameters that set these filters, but it doesn't seem this changes anything in how he handles these pages. So I'm considering three options: Adding <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> to the html header of these filtered pages 301 to the non-filtered page that contains the most similar information and will remain in the index Canonical tag. Which I'm not sure is exactly the mainstream use case, as these aren't really the same pages. Which should I use?

    Read the article

  • redirect non-www to www while preserving protocol

    - by Waleed Hamra
    I am aware of the fact that there are tons of questions in this section and in server fault dealing with redirections from non-www to www URLs. But I couldn't find one dealing with this issue while preserving protocol. I am no mod-rewrite expert, and my code is just copy/pasted... here's what i have: RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.tld$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.tld$1 [R=301,L] So now http://domain.tld and https://domain.tld are forwarded to http://domain.tld How do i make it so that https stays on https while http stays on http?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >