opentype

Add Message.

It should work with Twitter as well. I can’t see any problems with other sites. The TwitterCard validator doesn’t give much information, but the Facebook Debugger shows problem on your site in regards to “name” vs ”property” in the code. I would suggest to investigate that. My guess is, if Facebook doesn’t give warnings anymore, Twitter will be happy too. https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/sharing/

I would suggest you look for a developer to modify your database the way you want it. If you really want to, hide the record content from the following pages (or you have serious duplicate content issues), then add the canonical URLs for the following pages, so they are all treated uniquely as you want it. I do not see how you can make a case for that to be a stock Pages feature though. But I’m not going to continue to debate it this way. It’s not constructive and going in circles. Looks like Matt is making sensible decisions about this anyway.

First of all, please read the entire article I link and don’t limit it to a single sentence I quoted. The article clearly also supports what I just said about preference. And please be careful claiming I am wrong, when you cannot demonstrate that without the shadow of a doubt. You haven’t done that in any way. You haven’t even said what exactly I am wrong about. Quote it, repeat it, whatever. Then provide the correction. Be clear and precise. You should know by now that I do not accept false accusations in any way. Second of all, I do not care about the Trustpilot examples at all. They are not made with Pages, so they are irrelevant. Pages doesn’t work like this. I asked you for links supporting your claims like “critical to exclude review pages from crawling«. Where did you “investigate” that? You can’t accuse me of just providing a “point of view“, when you can’t back up what you are saying at the same time, e.g. by pointing to a Google article (or at least expert pages) supporting what you are saying. Sorry, I can’t accept that as a premise for your argument. Who says the record has two lines? Why does that follow from allowing reviews for the record? That makes no sense. And one more time: canonical does not mean “no index”. Setting a canonical for your two line record does NOT automatically mean, Google will ignore the review texts. Again, that just doesn’t follow.

I disagree again. For such review pages, the record itself usually holds the information about the product (name, description, features, price, whatever) and then the average rating, which is also put in the schema information so search engines can use it. That is exactly what you want indexed and appear in Google. Let’s say I have a book review database. The book is described in the record and the schema rating will be tied to the record. The individual reviews on such a record are essentially additional comments explaining the average rating. I don’t know why you would say “the reviews ARE what is really important here”. Are you saying, people would google a specific phrase from a review? I don’t get it. You think it’s more important to find “I loved the book! Read it in two days” instead of the record title in a query like “[book title] or “[book title] review”? By the way: canonical is about preference. It is not identical to “no index”. Instead of distributing the page rank among 5 pages of reviews for the same product, the canonical link makes sure it is all tied to the first page.

That doesn’t sound right and I also don’t fully understand what you are saying. It would also be good to post the links to where you got that from.

I’m not so sure about that. With forums, you clearly have different content on each page. With articles, you always load the same article (just with different comments), so preventing duplicate content regarding the article by using one canonical URL sounds exactly what canonical URLs are all about. If the article itself was hidden on the comment pages, then it might be a different case. It still may or may not be intentional behavior. I don’t know. IPS would have to clarify that. Either way: bugs reports should not require the latest release on the client site as long as the problem can be replicated on any installation. There would be nothing to check out on the client’s website. IPS support could just replicate it on a test installation.

I think you have to mark your blog post through something like “featuringing”. Then you can create a SuperBlocks block than only shows featured blog entries.

No. It only supports the feeds mentioned on the product page.

Just convert your WordPress posts to Pages records and your problems are solved.

What is the experience like for Android users? Do you make use of that feature for websites that have it? Does it feel overwhelming per site or across all sites which have push notifications?

It’s instant and on the system level. You don’t need to open the site manually or check your emails. You get a notification on your mobile device. Whatever you do, wherever you are. It’s how the big players like Facebook and Twitter get people to open their app over and over again.

Nope.

APPs(!), which also have a web interface.

Well, I have an Ibanez … It’s more living room decoration nowadays. It’s been many years since that was plugged into the Marshall amp, which I sold.

It sounds powerful and tempting, but I pass considering the privacy concerns. I don’t want to track every move of my visitors just to be able to place a retargeting ad on a different site they visit.

It confused me that there are some main menu entries which go to the actual area, while others (Our community / Specific Issues) just go back to the homepage when clicked for no apparent reason.

Usually with the activity feeds, like with any other content. All recent activity comes together there. (Not that I’m saying a recent comments widget would hurt.)

Only if you give users that right (which for most sites, you shouldn’t). I give no members the right to delete anything and I only give premium members the right to hide something.

There is a compatibility field which tells you whether the files will work with the version you are running. If contributors don’t update this field, the resource will get deactivated, so outdated resources will disappear after a while. IPS will also test and inspect new submission. In addition, there are the user reviews and the support topics to see how a resource is doing. So lot’s of ways to minimize your risk. There is no way to not have any risks at all of course.

Oh! ☺️ Yeah, that works. You can mix any of my Pages database templates however you like.

Yes and no. You can use both at once. I do that on the demo page as well. The first block shows articles: https://www.opentype.space/superblocks/ But SuperBlocks is a block template, not a Pages database template. So you can’t assign it to a Pages database homepage as you suggest.

While I’m not against the change, I feel like it’s asking to fix symptoms of an illness and not the illness itself. When people are opening individual forums to read on already opened posts, it feels like this is unnecessary cumbersome—especially on mobile. Personally, I never do that. I use the activity feeds only, because I can see everything at a glance and I don’t have to explore individual forums one by one. And I make sure my activity feeds are very prominent on the site, so my users also go with them.

I’ve unsubscribed again. Not sure who the target audience of this series is, but it feels like they are explaining what a search engine is to a child. I’m not learning anything from this.

You could try the other option of this global setting: While I understand your criticism, I doubt they want to restyle the blogs look based on where its shown.