My Sharona

Sounds like my problem...

I thought I gave you adequate information by telling you that... Is this not adequate information? It seems you should be able to access the key for my sites. If this is not enough information, please start a private email chain so that I may be able to give you the particulars you require. Looking at my ACP, It would seem that somebody has done something, because on my dashboard I see the following: There are 164 statements of 'Sending a Batch of PWA notifications'. I really need this fixed as I have records to publish and am a day behind at this moment. Did you change the title of my topic? I misspoke here, the database in question is 'form&id=2.' However, it should be self explanatory by just looking at the site and the frozen processes.

Apparently there is a different set of logs because in the 'Get Support' tab I see the following: Clicking the 'Fix This' button reveals that I have 11 and 1/2 pages of the following:

I also have a 'Notification' in the ACP which states: Locked Task: queue One of the routine maintenance tasks which run in the background has failed several times, which may indicate a configuration issue. Application/Plugin System Task queue Runs background queue tasks. Last Run Sunday at 06:58 AM You should check the logs for any indication of the issue or attempt to run it manually. If the task does not run successfully and you require further assistance, please contact support. Additionally, if I click the Run now button at the bottom of that notice, I get the following: 2C124/2 The task is already running and cannot be ran until it has finished or the lock is removed. If I click the 'View Logs' button, I get: Tasks do not usually log anything if they run without error. There are no results to display. You might have possibly looked at the wrong website. The account in question is: ****-****-****-****-VEHB

It would be categories of the database 'form&id=4.' Within that database, I cannot select/unselect, 'Post topic' in any category because, 'A comment move is in progress, you cannot change this setting until the process has been completed. ' grays out the ability to do so. This has been the condition for the last few day now, at least since 09/11/2022 06:58 AM. which is the time stamp on the System 'queue' task.

This relates to changing the settings Pages > Records > Categories > Forum > Post topic. I changed a setting and that apparently put into action a comment move (I mentioned this in the [feature suggestion] Database Records Canonical Meta Tag thread I created early Sept.). This was a little over a week ago, and at that time, I was unable to do much else with regard with regard to the "Categories' because there was a comment move in progress'. I needed to complete the edit of categories and attempted to do so today but am unable because the 'Comment move in progress' is apparently still running. I checked the system tasks and and the 'System queue' has been running for over two and a half days now. I clicked to 'Remove the running' lock but that does nothing. It looks like it resets the task but if you immediately refresh the page, is shows it is locked again. Please have a look and fix. TYIA

5. Set up a group promotion to advance the NOOBs

So... I have discovered an item with regard to this canonical meta tag system. Not sure if this is a minor bug or not. I have found that if I mark the database as posting a "topic" to a forum and then mark whatever category as to 'overriding the database forum options' and deselect 'post topic', the canonical tag on the database record will post a canonical meta tag that directs the record to have prominence. Additionally, in this scenario, a forum topic is still created. And, the canonical tag that is created with the forum topic gives that canonical meta tag direction to that forum topic. Almost certainly, it is not good to have two pages, almost identical, each dictating that they are the prominent version.

So... I have discovered an item with regard to this canonical meta tag system. I have found that if I mark the database as posting a "topic" to a forum and then mark whatever category as to 'overriding the database forum options' and deselect 'post topic', the canonical tag on the database record will post a canonical meta tag that directs the record to have prominence. Additionally, in this scenario, a forum topic is still created. And, the canonical tag that is created with the forum topic gives that canonical meta tag direction to that forum topic. Not sure it is good to have two pages, almost identical, each dictating that they are the prominent version (as Google states that they will ignore one of them), but my records are showing up in Google News.

The solution is in one of these threads.

System > Applications What ever application you 'Star' sets that as default and thus the domain.tld.

Again, just me and what I might do in this scenario... Select the last 20 or so pages (prior to those on a partial page load), just before where you want it to pick up, split them off into a different thread, lock the newly created thread for however long it takes you to move the prior posts from a partial listing page (and then opening the newly locked thread), so it can continue on in that context. Then as you get time, move the rest of the prior posts. At which point you will want to work forward so you get to select entire pages of posts. Good luck!

I don't believe they have addressed this matter as yet, someone will correct me if I am wrong. I did add a minor edit to my post above incase you missed it.

Clicking the box at the top of the replies will check every post on that page. I know it is probably not the solution you are looking for but it will reduce the "1 by 1" option by a factor of 19. If it were me and I had to do it that way, I would do the last 10/20 (20 clicks will move 400 posts) pages or so first just to get the split thread started and the discussion can continue, in context. When you move the rest, it will update as the move progresses. Additionally, by working backwards, it enables you to select all posts on the page, until you get to that cutoff point. You're probably locking the thread with the first 7500 posts anyways so, you could do it at your leisure after you get the secondary thread started.

Currently, when a record is created, you have the option of posting that record as a thread within a specified forum. If you utilize that option, both creations come with a canonical tag that gives the 'thread' preference. It would be nice if there was an option to give the 'Record' prominence over the 'Thread.' Having Google being directed to not rank the database page in tis manner kind of defeats the whole underlying purpose of a CMS system.TYIA

Thank you. IMO, having Google being directed to not rank the database pages kind of defeats the whole underlying purpose of a CMS system.

Good Day! I don't know if it is possible but... When a record is created, you have the option of posting that record as a thread within a specified forum. If you utilize that option, both creations come with a canonical tag that gives the 'thread' preference. I have a want for it to be the opposite, I would like the "Record" to have the canonical link direction. Any way to achieve this? TYIA

It's called, crypto.

That is my problem, I was looking for it in the admin panel on my Google Analytics account (where it keeps prompting me to switch to GA4), which was where I found the 'head snippet'. Thank Matt for the explicit explanation!

I did Marc, thank you. Unfortunately, I don't believe that tells me where to find the "Body Snippet" that is required to set up the Tag Manager Integration. As mentioned, I have found the 'Head Snippet" but can't save the integration to get it up and running till I find the body snippet.

Having a bit of trouble getting GTM within 'Integrations' up and running here. I have found the code from Google for the 'Head Snippet' but I'll be danged if I can find where they give you the code for the 'Body Snippet.' I can't enable and 'Save' the GTM without it. Any help is appreciated.

Having read the up on the background_size, I tried the following code, to no avail. .SG_record_image { background-size: contain; !important; background-repeat: no-repeat; !important; } I did go with: .SG_record_image { background-position:top !important; } which seems to be helping the issue somewhat.

If this is what you are saying: .SG_record_image { background-size:contain !important; } That indeed contains the image to the display window but it also adds the image again to both sides of the image. For lack of a better description, something like; side of imageimageside of image I don't know if this is due to the height of the image and that I would then need to adjust the 'aspect ratio'(?).

Thank you good sir. I think the 'contain' will work. If I'm understanding you correctly here, the following would work in the custom css file(?). Simply liking this post will suffice for a reply. .SG_record_image { background-position: contain !important; }

Good day @opentype I hope all is well. I have a question about the Hero Image. Currently, it is set so that there is the ability to set the 'aspect ratio'. What this does for the 'Record View', is to increase the overall vertical size of the image display within the article. While not as critical as the record view, this is equally true for the 'Listing View'. Ideally, one does not want to set the ratio too high as it makes the image quite large and sets the record text far below the fold. The issue I am perceiving, is that there are portions of the image that are cut off that is not optimal for the desired display within the record view. Again, while it is not a big deal for the listing view, it does make a difference for the record view. My question is how feasible would it be to incorporate some type of image manipulator that allows for the movement of the display area so one could customize the display a bit better than having essential parts of an image cut off. For clarity, say I want the left-hand corner of the image to be included, having the ability to select that complete portion of the image would be great. In an ideal world, this would also include the image aspect ratio that would adjust within the manipulator so that you would see the size of the rendering of that particular ratio. I hope my explanation of the issue is somewhat clearer than mud. As always, thank you for the consideration.