|
|
Thank you Sascha, and thank you for the link.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Sir,
My tip has been deleted without giving any reason.
Thanks,
Subodh
|
|
|
|
|
Please provide the link; we cannot guess which one it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because a number of people (not me) voted it as poor quality.
|
|
|
|
|
It stopped refreshing since 3-4 days. Everytime i see UNITY 3D – Game Programming – Part X only.
Example snapshot
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Did you notice that you've selected the "Mobile" tag? You're just displaying mobile articles and there probably wasn't a new one for 3 days? I can see newer articles by selecting other tags 
|
|
|
|
|
 I never selected it. Don't know how it got selected. Good spot.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
I have had this problem in the past when using filters in searches or QA. It seems to get proliferated in the home page; most confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Simplified] State Management in ASP.NET[^]
Don't know how did this get through. What is new in here? What's something which can be considered informative? All the decade old info. Author stated 'Simplified'. What is simplified here?
@Sean : I think it's getting more and more important to either display name of those who has approved the content or make a change regarding who can approve. As per i know, someone with pretty new to CP can get access to Moderation queue easily (With few subscriptions, some messages,some answers etc).
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
His other tips aren't much better.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
To me it looks like maybe the community approved it. But I am talking to Chris about your suggestions now.
You'd be surprised. A lot of times there's just a difference of opinion in the approval queue. Some people are softer, others harder.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Ewington wrote: Some people are softer, others harder
I kept quality of the content in mind.
Sean Ewington wrote: A lot of times there's just a difference of opinion in the approval queue
And i appreciate it. But the problem is, newbie s would not focus enough on how this approval mechanism works,so to provide them access to moderation queue just after 3-4K Authority points would not be efficient.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Another one for your request: Multiplication of two numbers using Angular Js[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have the tags in the body and the images were uploaded. Not sure how to fix the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I have the following problem. I have already published 20 articles using the blog feed feature. Before that my SEO of my blog was perfect, almost all of my articles was displayed 1st during google searches. However, after I published them here too, almost all of them have really bad SEO, displayed on the 10th page after Google search.
So my question is, is it possible to fix this? If it is not is it possible to complete delete, already published article. I have tried with one of my articles, but the only thing that happened was that it was set to status deleted but is still browsable and accessible through Google.
Thank you in advance for the answers!
Best,
Anton
|
|
|
|
|
When we republish a Technical Blog we insert canonical links to ensure you don't lose any Google Juice:
eg.
<link rel="canonical" href="/Articles/878773/Implement-Copy-Paste-Csharp-VB-NET-Application" />
<meta name="syndication-source" content="http://automatetheplanet.com/implement-copy-paste-c-vb-net-application/">
If you're losing search engine placement then you may need to take a look at your pages and keywords themselves.
Google messes with our heads. Constantly. Trying to second guess them is a road to insanity.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Update 2/11/11:
We've had a lot of interest in these meta tags, particularly in how the syndication-source tag relates to rel=canonical. After evaluating this feedback, we’ve updated our system to use rel=canonical instead of syndication-source, if both are specified.
If you know the full URL, rel=canonical is preferred, and you need not specify syndication-source.
I know it's an old post, but that seems to imply that Google is taking the rel=canonical URL as the source, and ignoring the syndication-source tag.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: to use rel=canonical instead of syndication-source, if both are specified
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
But you have specified both. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It's, like, way before midday here and I'm not multi-threading properly.
Allow me to quietly slap myself and make a change to our article view.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
