Search Results

Search found 24324 results on 973 pages for 'google chrome devtools'.

Page 398/973 | < Previous Page | 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405  | Next Page >

• Do I need social networks to be an expert developer? [closed]

  - by Gerald Blizzy

  This question may sound odd, but do I need twitter, facebook and google+ if I am a web-developer? I see many expert developers nowadays using it in working order. It seems like it's harder to stay in touch with customers, co-workers and potential customers if you don' use social networks. Am I right? Reason why I ask is that I am totally not a facebook/twitter person, I find it boring and annoying. I understand that linkedin is usefull for career, but what about twitter and facebook? Are they needed for web-developer career? What I am trying to ask is if I only use linkedin, own portfolio website, google talks, gmail and something like github, would I actually miss anything professionally/job-wise? My thoughts are that I can just have my portfolio website where I list all my projects aswell as contacts page with my google talks/gmail account. It can suit both fulltime job, freelance and own projects. So this way email and google talks is just enough. Am I right or not? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• What to do if I get ping results for non-existing hosts?

  - by bublegumm

  When I am pinging non-existing host like 'zzz' or 'qwerty' I am getting the following result Pinging zzz.kanisa.com [209.62.20.200] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 209.62.20.200: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=46 Reply from 209.62.20.200: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=46 It looks like a virus to me. But I was unable to find a solution on web. Any ideas how to fix it? Even more ridiculous results with nslookup C:\> nslookup google.com Server: google-public-dns-a.google.com Address: 8.8.8.8 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com.kanisa.com Address: 209.62.20.200 How to get rid of it?

  Read the article

• iOS and Server: OAuth strategy

  - by drekka

  I'm trying to working how to handle authentication when I have iOS clients accessing a Node.js server and want to use services such as Google, Facebook etc to provide basic authentication for my application. My current idea of a typical flow is this: User taps a Facebook/Google button which triggers the OAuth(2) dialogs and authenticates the user on the device. At this point the device has the users access token. This token is saved so that the next time the user uses the app it can be retrieved. The access token is transmitted to my Node.js server which stores it, and tags it as un-verified. The server verifies the token by making a call to Facebook/google for the users email address. If this works the token is flagged as verified and the server knows it has a verified user. If Facebook/google fail to authenticate the token, the server tells iOS client to re-authenticate and present a new token. The iOS client can now access api calls on my Node.js server passing the token each time. As long as the token matches the stored and verified token, the server accepts the call. Obviously the tokens have time limits. I suspect it's possible, but highly unlikely that someone could sniff an access token and attempt to use it within it's lifespan, but other than that I'm hoping this is a reasonably secure method for verification of users on iOS clients without having to roll my own security. Any opinions and advice welcome.

  Read the article

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

  - by balpha

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

  Read the article

• Standard ratio of cookies to "visitors"?

  - by Jeff Atwood

  As noted in a recent blog post, We see a large discrepancy between Google Analytics "visitors" and Quantcast "visitors". Also, for reasons we have never figured out, Google Analytics just gets larger numbers than Quantcast. Right now GA is showing more visitors (15 million) on stackoverflow.com alone than Quantcast sees on the whole network (14 million): Why? I don’t know. Either Google Analytics loses cookies sometimes, or Quantcast misses visitors. Counting is an inexact science. We think this is because Quantcast uses a more conservative ratio of cookies-to-visitors. Whereas Google Analytics might consider every cookie a "visitor", Quantcast will only consider every 1.24 cookies a "visitor". This makes sense to me, as people may access our sites from multiple computers, multiple browsers, etcetera. I have two closely related questions: Is there an accepted standard ratio of cookies to visitors? This is obviously an inexact science, but is there any emerging rule of thumb? Is there any more accurate way to count "visitors" to a website other than relying on browser cookies? Or is this just always going to be kind of a best-effort estimation crapshoot no matter how you measure it?

  Read the article

• In c-panel mail goes in spam instead of inbox in gmail

  - by Robin Jain

  I have c-panel vps server I have create a domain in the same server but when I sent a mail through webmail to gmail email id it goes into spam. Note--->Mail ip note blacklisted Spf records enable DKIM enable reverse dns are perfect ====================================================================== Email header Information: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.143.93.13 with SMTP id v13csp119806wfl; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:01:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.52.42 with SMTP id q10mr26133912obo.46.1341586895571; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from lakshyacs-u.securehostdns.com ([50.97.147.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fx3si18028369obc.144.2012.07.06.08.01.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 50.97.147.134 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.97.147.134; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 50.97.147.134 as permitted sender) [email protected] Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:39016 helo=harishjoshico.com) by lakshyacs-u.securehostdns.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1SnA2J-0006Nq-05 for [email protected]; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:31:35 +0530 Received: from 223.189.14.213 ([223.189.14.213]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user [email protected]) by harishjoshico.com with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:31:35 +0530 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:31:35 +0530 Subject: ggglkhl From: [email protected] To: [email protected] User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - lakshyacs-u.securehostdns.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - harishjoshico.com jhkhl ================================================================

  Read the article

• How to 301 redirect from old query string urls to CakePHP Canonical urls?

  - by Daniel Bingham

  I currently have a .htaccess file that looks like this: RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^action=view&item=([0-9]+)$ RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /index.php?url=item/%1 [R=301] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php?url=$1 [QSA,L] It is meant to 301 redirect my old query string based URLs to new CakePHP urls. This will successfully send users to the correct page. However, Google doesn't seem to like it (see below). I previously tried doing this: RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^action=view&item=([0-9]+)$ RewriteRule ^index\.php$ /item/%1 [R=301] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php?url=$1 [QSA,L] But that fails. The second rewrite rule doesn't seem to catch the rewritten URL. It goes straight through. Using the first version wouldn't be a problem, except that I suspect that is what is choking up Google. It hasn't indexed my sitemap full of the new URLs. My old sitemap had been fully indexed and all the URLs are in Google's index. But it isn't following the redirects from the old URLs to the new. I have a 'not followed' error for every one of the query urls that was in my old sitemap. Am I properly using a 301 redirect here? Is it the weird rewrite rule? What can I do to send both Google and users to the proper page and save my page rank?

  Read the article

• cURL - Unkown SSL protocol error - OS X 10.9

  - by saq7

  I am trying to use cURL and get the following error on every https request I make. The error is always the same. HTTP requests work flawlessly. The verbose output is quite useless. Saquibs-MacBook-Pro:~ skothawala$ curl https://google.com -vv * Adding handle: conn: 0x7fe09b803a00 * Adding handle: send: 0 * Adding handle: recv: 0 * Curl_addHandleToPipeline: length: 1 * - Conn 0 (0x7fe09b803a00) send_pipe: 1, recv_pipe: 0 * About to connect() to google.com port 443 (#0) * Trying 74.125.226.129... * Connected to google.com (74.125.226.129) port 443 (#0) * Unknown SSL protocol error in connection to google.com:-9805 * Closing connection 0 curl: (35) Unknown SSL protocol error in connection to google.com:-9805 I have looked through other answers on this forum and other places on the internet, but haven't found an answer. Most people's issues involve particular servers and the configuration of SSL on these servers. Mine however is problematic anytime HTTPS is used (with any website). Can someone please suggest what I should be looking into to solve the problem? Can it be that something is not properly configured? What should I be looking for?

  Read the article

• Can't connect to YouTube from specific network

  - by Tyilo

  Using my current network, I am unable to connect to http://www.youtube.com/. It doesn't matter what browser I use or if I use a cli-command (wget, curl). Error in Google Chrome: Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to www.youtube.com Error using curl: curl: (7) couldn't connect to host If I use nslookup to get the IP-address of YouTube, I get 173.194.32.32. If I go to http://173.194.32.32/ in my browser it can connect, but as Google is probably checking the Host HTTP-header, it shows Google's frontpage instead. There is no blocked websites on the router and other devices on the network seems to work. My computer only has this problem on this specific network. I am using Mac OS X 10.8.2 on a MacBook (mid 2009).

  Read the article

• Ways to dynamically render a real world 3d environment in Unity3D

  - by Jake M

  Using Unity3D and C# I am attempting to display a 3d version of a real world location. Inside my Unity3D app, the user will specify the GPS coordinates of a location, then my app will have to generate a 3d plane(anything doesn't have to be a plane) of that location. The plane will show a 500 metre by 500 metre 3d snapshot of that location. How would you suggest I achieve this in Unity3D? What methodology would you use to achieve this? NOTE: I understand that this is a very difficult endevour(to render real world locations dynamically in Unity3d) so I expect to perform many actions to achieve this. I just don't know of all the technologies out there and which would be best for my needs For example: Suggested methodology 1: Prompt user to specify GPS coords Use Google earth API and HTTP to programmatically obtain a .khm file describing that location(Not sure if google earth provides that capability does it?) Unzip the .khm so I have the .dae file Convert that file to a .3ds file using ??? third party converter(is there a converter that exists?) Import .3ds into Unity3D at runtime as a plane(is this possible)? Suggested methodology 2: Prompt user to specify GPS coords Use Google earth API and HTTP to programmatically obtain a .khm file describing that location(Not sure if google earth provides that capability does it?) Unzip the .khm so I have the .dae file Parse .dae file using my own C# parser I will write(do you think its possible to write a .dae parser that can parse the .dae into an array of Vector3 that describe the height map of that location?) Dynamically create a plane in Unity3D and populate it with my array/list of Vector3 points(is it possible to create a plane this way?) Maybe I am meant to create a mesh instead of a plane? Can you think of any other ways I could render a real world 3d environment in Unity3D?

  Read the article

• Browser language detection & content ranking for new language on the same site.

  - by Arnaud

  I've been reading a lot about it but it's still really hard to make up my mind. My understand is that if your website provide a link to the other language, this should not be an issue for google as long as your links are clear and clean, google will be able to make his way through it. The website was orginaly in french and I added the english version and I'm just worry that english speaker will just leave if the site is not in the correct language, for the home page I just wanted to get the value from the browser and redirect it to /fr/ or /en/ for the first page. (using php this will be very easy) Could you guys have a look at it and tell me what you think about it http://tinyurl.com/bpc5bn9 I don't want to get it wrong and lost my ranking with google. Also the website has good rank on the french side and the english has been online for 2 weeks and only get few visit a day, is that because all the back link refer to /fr/ and google is cleaver enough to decide that they are 2 differantes website and the back link will have to point to /en/ to increase the ranking value? Or will take few more weeks for the website to grow? Thanks for your hep

  Read the article

• Is there a tool that can test what SSL/TLS cipher suites a particular website offers?

  - by Jeremy Powell

  Is there a tool that can test what SSL/TLS cipher suites a particular website offers? I've tried openssl, but if you examine the output: $ echo -n | openssl s_client -connect www.google.com:443 CONNECTED(00000003) depth=1 /C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate verify return:0 --- Certificate chain 0 s:/C=US/ST=California/L=Mountain View/O=Google Inc/CN=www.google.com i:/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA 1 s:/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA i:/C=US/O=VeriSign, Inc./OU=Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority --- Server certificate -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIDITCCAoqgAwIBAgIQL9+89q6RUm0PmqPfQDQ+mjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADBM MQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkg THRkLjEWMBQGA1UEAxMNVGhhd3RlIFNHQyBDQTAeFw0wOTEyMTgwMDAwMDBaFw0x MTEyMTgyMzU5NTlaMGgxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQIEwpDYWxpZm9ybmlh MRYwFAYDVQQHFA1Nb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3MRMwEQYDVQQKFApHb29nbGUgSW5jMRcw FQYDVQQDFA53d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkC gYEA6PmGD5D6htffvXImttdEAoN4c9kCKO+IRTn7EOh8rqk41XXGOOsKFQebg+jN gtXj9xVoRaELGYW84u+E593y17iYwqG7tcFR39SDAqc9BkJb4SLD3muFXxzW2k6L 05vuuWciKh0R73mkszeK9P4Y/bz5RiNQl/Os/CRGK1w7t0UCAwEAAaOB5zCB5DAM BgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMDYGA1UdHwQvMC0wK6ApoCeGJWh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3Rl LmNvbS9UaGF3dGVTR0NDQS5jcmwwKAYDVR0lBCEwHwYIKwYBBQUHAwEGCCsGAQUF BwMCBglghkgBhvhCBAEwcgYIKwYBBQUHAQEEZjBkMCIGCCsGAQUFBzABhhZodHRw Oi8vb2NzcC50aGF3dGUuY29tMD4GCCsGAQUFBzAChjJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRoYXd0 ZS5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9UaGF3dGVfU0dDX0NBLmNydDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOBgQCfQ89bxFApsb/isJr/aiEdLRLDLE5a+RLizrmCUi3nHX4adpaQedEkUjh5 u2ONgJd8IyAPkU0Wueru9G2Jysa9zCRo1kNbzipYvzwY4OA8Ys+WAi0oR1A04Se6 z5nRUP8pJcA2NhUzUnC+MY+f6H/nEQyNv4SgQhqAibAxWEEHXw== -----END CERTIFICATE----- subject=/C=US/ST=California/L=Mountain View/O=Google Inc/CN=www.google.com issuer=/C=ZA/O=Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd./CN=Thawte SGC CA --- No client certificate CA names sent --- SSL handshake has read 1777 bytes and written 316 bytes --- New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is AES256-SHA Server public key is 1024 bit Compression: NONE Expansion: NONE SSL-Session: Protocol : TLSv1 Cipher : AES256-SHA Session-ID: 748E2B5FEFF9EA065DA2F04A06FBF456502F3E64DF1B4FF054F54817C473270C Session-ID-ctx: Master-Key: C4284AE7D76421F782A822B3780FA9677A726A25E1258160CA30D346D65C5F4049DA3D10A41F3FA4816DD9606197FAE5 Key-Arg : None Start Time: 1266259321 Timeout : 300 (sec) Verify return code: 20 (unable to get local issuer certificate) --- it just shows that the cipher suite is something with AES256-SHA. I know I could grep through the hex dump of the conversation, but I was hoping for something a little more elegant. I would prefer Linux tools, but Windows (or other) would be fine. This question is motivated by the security testing I do for PCI and general penetration testing. Update: GregS points out below that the SSL server picks from the cipher suites of the client. So it seems I would need to test all cipher suites one at a time. I think I can hack something together, but is there a tool that does particularly this?

  Read the article

• The Bing Sting - an alternative opinion

  - by Charles Young

  I know I'm a bit of an MS fanboy at times, but please, am I missing something here? Microsoft, with permission of users, exploits clickstream data gathered by observing user behaviour. One use for this data is to improve Bing queries. Google equips twenty of its engineers with laptops and installs the widgets required to provide Microsoft with clickstream data. It then gets their engineers to repeatedly (I assume) type in 'synthetic' queries which bring back 'doctored' hits. It asks its engineers to then click these results (think about this!). So, the behaviour of the engineers is observed and the resulting clickstream data goes off to Microsoft. It is processed and 'improves' Bing results accordingly.   What exactly did Microsoft do wrong here?   Google's so-called 'Bing sting' is clearly a very effective attack from a propaganda perspective, but is poor practice from a company that claims to do no evil. Generating and sending clickstream data deliberately so that you can then subsequently claim that your competitor 'copied' that data from you is neither fair nor reasonable, and suggests to me a degree of desperation in the face of real competition.   Monopolies are undesirable, whether they are Microsoft monopolies or Google monopolies.    Personally, I'm glad Microsoft has technology in place to observe user behaviour (with permission, of course) and improve their search results using such data. I can only assume Google doesn't implement similar capabilities. Sounds to me as if, at least in this respect, Microsoft may offer the better technology.

  Read the article

• dig show only answer

  - by Zulakis

  I want dig only to show the answer of my query. Normally, it prints out alot of additional info like this: ;; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> google.de ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 55839 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;google.de. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: google.de. 208 IN A 173.194.69.94 ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: 213.133.99.99#53(213.133.99.99) ;; WHEN: Sun Sep 23 10:02:34 2012 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 43 I want this to be reduced to just the answer section. dig has alot of options, a good one i found was +noall +answer ; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> google.de +noall +answer ;; global options: +cmd google.de. 145 IN A 173.194.69.94 It leaves out most of the stuff, but still shows this options thing. Any ideas on how to remove it using dig options? I sure could cut it out using other tools, but a option with dig itself would be the cleanest and nicest.

  Read the article

• Do large number of internal broken links affect SEO?

  - by TheBigK

  We've a WordPress blog and had disqus plugin in stalled for several months. Around late August this year, the plugin created a ton of URLs that linked to non-existent location on our website. For example - Correct URL: domain.com/correct-URL/ Disqus created - domain.com/correct-URL/344322/ - Throws 404 domain.com/correct-URL/433466/ - Throws 404 So essentially, Google found a LARGE number of broken links that pointed to unknown locations on our own domain. As the count of those errors (404) rose, our site suffered massive drop in traffic and crawl rate dropped to 10% of what it was earlier. I wish to know - Can large number of (we've over 99k of them) internal broken links cause rankings to drop? I've fixed the issue in one go by creating 301 redirects for each bad URL to correct URL and removing disqus. Google however drops the count by ~1000 daily, as I mark errors as 'fixed' in Google Webmaster Tools. Is there any way to speed this up? Should I setup custom crawl rate to 'Fast' in GWT to make Google crawl our website faster? I'd appreciate your inputs and experience sharing.

  Read the article

• What's going on with traceroute?

  - by Kevin

  The following is what happens when I run traceroute from a certain location: # traceroute google.com traceroute to google.com (74.125.227.39), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gateway.local.enactpc.com (10.0.0.1) 0.138 ms 0.101 ms 0.084 ms 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * Absolutely nothing of interest... Now, originally I thought this was just a fact of the location's network set up. (I assume they block pings or something...) However, watch what happens when I use nmap to run a traceroute... # nmap -sP --traceroute google.com Starting Nmap 5.21 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2012-09-25 22:18 CDT Nmap scan report for google.com (74.125.227.40) Host is up (0.034s latency). Hostname google.com resolves to 11 IPs. Only scanned 74.125.227.40 rDNS record for 74.125.227.40: dfw06s06-in-f8.1e100.net TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp) HOP RTT ADDRESS 1 0.19 ms gateway.local.enactpc.com (10.0.0.1) 2 1.93 ms 99-20-92-1.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (99.20.92.1) 3 25.61 ms 99-20-92-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (99.20.92.2) 4 ... 6 7 23.68 ms 12.83.68.137 8 31.30 ms gar23.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.85.73) 9 ... 10 31.82 ms 72.14.233.65 11 32.27 ms 209.85.250.77 12 32.98 ms dfw06s06-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.227.40) Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.29 seconds When using nmap I get A LOT more results than with traceroute, why? Note, I checked, and the difference in target IP addresses is not related...

  Read the article

• How to make RewriteCond+RewriteRule change domain2/folder1 to domain1/folder1

  - by gman

  There's actually 2 questions. One is, how do I make RewriteCond+RewriteRule change domain2/folder1 to domain1/folder1 Actually what I want is any domain that tries to access folder1 that is not domain1 gets switched to domain1. So for example domain2.com/domain1/foo - domain1.com/domain1/foo as well as domain3.com/domain1/foo - domain1.com/domain1/foo This is what I tried RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^domain1\.com$ [NC] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/folder1/ RewriteRule ^/folder1/(.*)$ http://domain1.com/folder1/$1 [L,R=permanent] But that doesn't work. Next I tried some a simpler rule to see if I could narrow down the issue. RewriteCond ${HTTP_HOST} domain2\.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://google.com/ [L] I though that would make ANY request to domain2.com go to google.com so I tried http://domain2.com/foo but I get domain2.com/foo not google.com If I go to http://domain2.com I get google. Why don't I get there if I go to http://domain2.com/foo? What am I not understanding about mod_rewrite?

  Read the article

• Is there an OpenID demo server out there?

  - by billpg

  Hi everyone. I'm doing some experiements with adding OpenID to something I'm working on, and I'd like to test out a few providers. Is there a server out there that will go through the OpenID login process (same way that the StackOverflow group does) and tell me all the information the provider shows. I imagine it would work like... I go to example.com and type in https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id example.com bounces me to google. I log in. Google asks me to confirm if I allow example.com access to everything. Google bounces me back to example.com example.com tells me my OpenID, email address, anything else it's got. Does such a thing please already exist?

  Read the article

• 404s on password protected content

  - by tjb1982

  I'm new to WordPress and SEO, generally, but we've been running into problems with our site that don't seem to make sense to me. The problem is that our editor likes to schedule posts and/or mark them private until she is ready to make them public, but somehow Google is crawling these posts and getting 404s (because they are password protected). How does Google know they exist in the first place? I checked the sitemap.xml file and don't see a record of the post. One of the offending posts was marked public, but is scheduled for a future date. Could that have something to do with it? I've tried to Google the answer, and I came up with a good amount of reassurance that this won't hurt the site, but I'm still wondering how it's happening in the first place. It's hard because I don't know exactly what the editor's workflow is. Is it possible she's posting publicly first and then revising it to be private only after it's too late? Does anyone know how Google finds WordPress URLs it shouldn't have access to?

  Read the article

• How to make XAMPP virtual hosts accessible to VM's and other computers on LAN?

  - by martin's

  XAMPP running on Vista 64 Ultimate dev machine (don't think it matters). Machine / Browser configuration Safari, Firefox, Chrome and IE9 on dev machine IE7 and IE8 on separate XP Pro VM's (VMWare on dev machine) IE10 and Chrome on Windows 8 VM (VMware on dev machine) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a iMac (same network as dev) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a couple of Mac Pro's (same network as dev) IE7, IE8, IE9 running on other PC's on the same network as dev machine Development Configuration Multiple virtual hosts for different projects .local fake TLD for development No firewall restrictions on dev machine for Apache Some sites have .htaccess mapping www to non-www Port 80 is open in the dev machine's firewall Problem XAMPP local home page (http://192.168.1.98/xampp/) can be accessed from everywhere, real or virtual, by IP All .local sites can be accessed from the browsers on the dev machine. All .local sites can be accessed form the browsers in the XP VM's. Some .local sites cannot be accessed from IE10 or Chrome on the W8 VM Sites that cannot be accessed from W8 VM have a minimal .htaccess file No .local sites can be accessed from ANY machine (PC or Mac) on the LAN hosts on dev machine (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 site1.local 127.0.0.1 site2.local 127.0.0.1 site3.local 127.0.0.1 site4.local 127.0.0.1 site5.local 127.0.0.1 site6.local 127.0.0.1 site7.local 127.0.0.1 site8.local 127.0.0.1 site9.local 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local httpd-vhosts.conf on dev machine (relevant excerpt) NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName localhost ServerAlias localhost *.localhost.* DocumentRoot D:/xampp/htdocs </VirtualHost> # ======================================== site1.local <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName site1.local ServerAlias site1.local *.site1.local DocumentRoot D:/xampp-sites/site1/public_html ErrorLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/access.log CustomLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/error.log combined <Directory D:/xampp-sites/site1> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks AllowOverride All Require all granted </Directory> </VirtualHost> NOTE: The above <VirtualHost *:80> block is repeated for each of the nine virtual hosts in the file, no sense in posting it here. hosts on all VM's and physical machines on the network (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local None of the VM's have any firewall blocks on http traffic. They can reach any site on the real Internet. The same is true of the real machines on the network. The biggest puzzle perhaps is that the W8 VM actually DOES reach some of the virtual hosts. It does NOT reach site2, site6 and site 9, all of which have this minimal .htaccess file. .htaccess file <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\. RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] </IfModule> Adding this file to any of the virtual hosts that do work on the W8 VM will break the site (only for W8 VM, not the XP VM's) and require a cache flush on the W8 VM before it will see the site again after deleting the file. Regardless of whether a .htaccess file exists or not, no machine on the same LAN can access anything other than the XAMPP home page via IP. Even with hosts files on all machines. I can ping any virtual host from any machine on the network and get a response from the correct IP address. I can't see anything in out Netgear router that might prevent one machine from reaching the other. Besides, once the local hosts file resolves to an ip address that's all that goes out onto the local network. I've gone through an extensive number of posts on both SO and as the result of Google searches. I can't say that I have found anything definitive anywhere.

  Read the article

• Site experiencing low traffic volume between 8AM and 4PM BST

  - by BizNuge

  There may be no definitive answer to this question but I thought peer review of the problem might stimulate some ideas on the topic. We have a boutique sales site that is experiencing low volumes of traffic (both UK and international) between 8AM and 4PM BST. This seems sort of strange since our target audience for the site is UK based, and this would seem to be when people are awake and online. We are in contact with another boutique site in the same sector who don't experience this issue, so it seems kinda strange. Later on in the day we are getting traffic from the UK, as well as a fair amount of international traffic, so I'm at a loss to figure this one out. The site is fairly well optimised including:- sitemap.xml Proper caching policies across the board google merchant dublin core microdata html5 pretty urls meta and content are reviewed as an ongoing concern we have decent sitelinks for direct queries thru google on the site name a decent amount of inbound links FB, Twitter, Google +1 Google maps listing [verified] site has been selling for ~4 months and is getting ~250 users per day. So I'm not entirely sure how to explain the mid day dip in our figures.... Any ideas at all would be useful. Cheers all!

  Read the article

• Problem with the hosts file under windows 7

  - by martani_net

  I updated some entries in the hosts file "C:\WINDOWS\System32\drivers\etc" to make google for example point to 127.0.0.1 # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost 127.0.0.1 google.com This works fine under windows Vista, but not under Widows 7. When I type google, it goes directly to Google's website. For info, I am not using a proxy server. I think there are some temporary DNS settings that must be flushed, but I don't know how, anyone knows how to fix this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Is my current htaccess setting hurting SEO?

  - by user656002

  I have a site that I have redirecting to https. I do this to leverage wildcard SSL for my password protected pages. Everything seems to work fine with testing. For example, whether you type in http or www, you always get redirected to the SSL https... That said, I have about 200-300 external backlinks -- many high quality, yet google webmaster (along with SEOMoz), shows I have just 4... Huh? I'm embarrassed to say I just discovered this. This has led me to hypothesize that maybe my settings in htaccess is messed up, so google isn't recognizing a link because it's recorded on another site as http, instead of https. Maybe? At any rate, here is my simple htaccess setting for 301 www to http (The https redirect must be done inside the virtual host file--I think). I don't have anything in the htaccess file for https RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.example\.com$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 [L,R=301] Like I said, everything works fine for redirect over https, so I'd rather not screw up what works. On the other hand something is very wrong with google finding all my back links, so I need to fix something... I'm just wondering that maybe google isn't picking up a my backlinks from other websites recording me as http because I'm at https. Maybe google doesn't care and it's some other issue. Am I barking up the right tree? If so any quick fixes? Thanks as always!

  Read the article

• Why can't I connect directly with my gmail openid ?

  - by asksuperuser

  When I connect with Google to SuperUser, it shows me an openid in the form https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=xxx I then added it to my profile and tried to logout and reconnect with it but Google says the page request is invalid.

  Read the article

• What kind of redirect (301 or 302) for an email links tracker?

  - by MaxiWheat

  We are developing an email sending application ("à la" Mailchimp). Hyperlinks inserted by our users, in the emails they want to send, are replaced by a tracking URL on our application (https://ourdomain.com/trackingurl?blablabla) which then redirects the email reader to the original URL our users included in their emails. This allows us to record statistics about link clicks. Until now, we used 301 for those redirections, but we noticed that Google began indexing pages on our application which are in fact redirects to other domains. (The title and snippet in Google results are from the other domain, but the link in green is from our application). We took action by adding those urls to our robots.txt, but Google seems to take forever (months!) before removing them for its index and removing them by hand in Webmaster Tools would take a lot of time since there are lot. I would like to know which kind of HTTP redirect (301 or 302) is best suited for this kind of opreation ? Do you think switching to 302 redirects could improve this situation since we don't really want Google to index redirected links from our clients emails ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405  | Next Page >