Matt
-
Content Count
67,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
299
About Matt
-
Rank
Chief Software Architect
Recent Profile Visitors
250,769 profile views
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Always! 🙂
-
-
You have the data on your server (or if you are on our cloud plan, we will give you a copy when you leave) and there are numerous conversion tools for other platforms.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This was discussed internally again yesterday.
-
FEATURE REQUEST: notifications for unread PMs
Matt replied to liquidfractal's topic in Feedback and Ideas
I like this idea.- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Leave this with me. Everything I have read states that you should add a canonical to most pages even if they are completely self referencing. The omission of the tab is a real issue though and a simple bug to fix.
-
A month ago, CrossFit, Inc. posted a scathing blog entry outlining why they made the decision to quit Facebook and Instagram. I first came across CrossFit back in early 2007 when I was looking for new ways to improve my fitness. Their fitness programming was a breath of fresh air. Most workouts were based around either long cardio workouts such as running or traditional gym workouts with weights and machines. CrossFit successfully combined the two into a short intense workout which gained popularity very quickly. I was a fan immediately and followed the WODs (workout of the day) as closely as possible and watched the early CrossFit stars emerge. CrossFit, Inc. is very strong-minded. Their press release cites several reasons for their abandonment of the Facebook platform. They also expand on this and believe that "Facebook collaborates with government security agencies on massive citizen surveillance programs such as PRISM", "Facebook, as a matter of business and principle, has weak intellectual property protections and is slow to close down IP theft accounts." and "Facebook has poor security protocols and has been subject to the largest security breaches of user data in history." It's certainly a bold move. CrossFit does have a legacy forum system which dates back from its early days which gets some use still. I think that investing in that community platform through modernisation along with a solid community building strategy could pay dividends in them taking back control of their conversation without fear of falling foul of any heavy-handed moderation beyond their control. Modern community platforms like ours have plenty of tools to automate basic moderation, encourage more engagement and work well on mobile devices. CrossFit, Inc join Lush Cosmetics as high profile brands that have taken themselves off Facebook completely. Do you think we'll see a resurgence of owned-communities? -
I'm always interested, and would love to know. We often make decisions based on research and our own experience, so balancing that out with more data always helps. Now I'm thinking of going back to a setting. I've read tons on canonical link for pagination and the general thought is "it depends". I still maintain that for a classic "article with comments" you want page 1 indexed and are less concerned with pages >=2 comments because it's the article you wrote that you want indexed, not potentially 10 duplicate copies with different potentially low value comments (such as emoji thumbs up and gifs). However, you raise a good point about databases being used for a different purpose where the reviews/comments are more important than the content you wrote. You might embed a Youtube video and ask for thoughts - and those user-contributed thoughts are more important than the Youtube embed. So I think perhaps asking a question per database like: "Strongly hint to search engines that" [] All pages should be considered the same (such a posting a long-form article and expecting pages of comments) [] All pages should be considered different (such as posting a link, and expecting pages of comments and reviews) Maybe I can phrase it better, but I think this is really the only solution. Having such flexibility in Pages is both a blessing and a curse.
-
I guess this really means that Google is relying less on what the mark-up says, and more on how it computes relationships. Which makes sense as you can 'game' things via the markup.
-
I've had a read and the general consensus is that you don't need the canonical tag on page >= 2 as the next/prev tags take care of that. I think what I'll do for blog and pages is: 1) Show the canonical on page 1 2) Do not show canonical on page >=2 UNLESS there are other inline params to filter comments and the canonical will point to the root page because the filters will change what the pages contain.
-
I guess we could add a setting, but most people wouldn't understand what the setting is for or why they need to choose. The best option may be to remove the canonical tag completely and let Google figure it out themselves.
-
Every single database record regardless of how it is configured will have a Title and Content field followed by comments and reviews. I don't think there's a way without modifying the code to have a review database that doesn't always show the "content" on each page. You raise a good point about consistency and blog. I believe this also should not show the canonical as the current page, but rather the root page for the same reasons. But again, I do not think this is a do or die / be unlisted by Google because the canonical is incorrect in your eyes. Google uses the canonical as a suggestion for what may be the root page. For topics, the posts are important, thus the canonical should be the set to the current page. For blogs and articles, the main content (not the comments) are the most important and SEO rich part of the entire structure thus it makes sense that the canonical is consistent across all pages.
-
Bulk Mail - Provide option for custom profile fileds
Matt replied to AlexJ's topic in Feedback and Ideas
Yeah, I like this idea. -
When we rebuild the posts to add lazy loading, we do not know the dimensions of the image, so we can't create the spacer. However, when you add new posts that have attachments, we do know the size and will create a spacer so you don't get the page jumping around.
-
@Sonya* Regarding https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.notonthehighstreet.com?page=2 - there each page is different. With a pages record you have at least half the page with a single article that is shown on page 2, 3 and so on. Based on this, canonical links to each page for an article would be incorrect because it would then see "Article text" as content duplicated across multiple pages. Keep in mind that canonical is not a hard rule for Google. It uses it to decide which is the best page to index, it doesn't mean it will ignore multiple pages. We use the meta pagination tags to further inform Google about the structure of the document.
-
Just so you know we are discussing all this internally.
