Sean
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks Héctor, very easy fix indeed and everything is working perfectly once again 🙂
Thanks for your reply.
That’s a bummer, It’s broken on my site and since I don’t know CSS and hired a designer he would probably charge me a fee for “tweaks” if he even has time to do it…
Would reverting/downgrading the entire plugin to 2.2.1 fix the CSS issue, or is this something that needs to be changed manually? I have the popular post widget right in the top of my sidebar and it’s ugly without css…
Is there a step by step way for us to fix this in the mean time?
I tried restoring the v2.2.1 style.css file and that didn’t work for me.
Thanks John, I will look into the WP plugin.
I selectively disabled the auto-minify stuff in CloudFlare and can report the same results as scottswan – it’s definitely the HTML minify feature that is causing the problem.
Once I disabled that checkbox in CloudFlare, everything in WP Super Cache works as normal again.
John,
1) I do not have the CloudFlare WordPress plugin installed (i’m trying to keep my plugins to a minimum and didn’t think it was necessary). I am on Dreamhost shared hosting so I’m gonna guess no to the mod_cloudflare apache question.
2) Haven’t noticed any other issues besides this (settings not staying selected). I have “Auto Minify” beta feature turned on and all three checkboxes (JS/CSS/HTML) selected to be minified. So it must be that, because I never enabled Rocket Loader on my sites and still have this issue.
I am using the latest versions of WordPress (3.2.1) and WP Super Cache (0.9.9.9) by the way, if that matters.
Have the same issue here as well using CloudFlare. I was wondering why my settings were never staying selected, at least now I know what is causing it.
Another thing I’ve noticed with CloudFlare enabled, when I press the “Test Cache” button in WP Super Cache it says the “The pages do not match! Timestamps differ or were not found!” – but with CloudFlare disabled it works fine.
Thank you, that would be much appreciated if you can add this capability to a future version! 🙂
I have hundreds of video posts, half which use the “video” custom field and the other half use “youtubevidid” custom field. If I were to filter by just one of those custom fields, a huge amount of results would be missing.
Being able to filter by two custom fields would not only fix that problem, but it would also allow me to offer other helpful options on the search page (such as a “videos with transcripts” filter).
The customfield_key filter works on premium, so that’s excellent!
However is there a way I can make it look for TWO custom fields (both “video” AND “youtubevidid”)? I’m not good with PHP or anything so I don’t know how to construct the URL for that.
Thank you for the quick response. “&customfield_key=video” doesn’t seem to be working for me however, it still shows the default results (all results sorted by relevancy) rather than just the posts with “video” custom field.
This is the full code I have:
<li><a>?s=<?php echo get_search_query();?>&customfield_key=video">Video</a></li>
Are you sure that is in the free version? I’ve just purchased the premium one anyway so hopefully it’ll work in that.Thank you for the extremely fast update/fix, msaari! 🙂
Temporary solution until this gets fixed is to downgrade to the previous version (2.9.1) which you can download from here: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/relevanssi/download/
Thanks mike, extremely helpful post!
(1) I see in All In One SEO options that there is a checkbox to disable the canonical URL stuff but that seems like something that should maybe be left on? It says it “will help to prevent duplicate content penalties by Google” — it’s easy enough to disable but I want to make sure it doesn’t negatively affect my site first. I assume it’s okay to turn off, otherwise it’d be built into WordPress by default. Either way, it’s nice to finally know that this is probably the culprit in my images not getting indexed.
(2) I’ve just enabled the permalinks and hopefully this change will help.
(3) I think I would prefer to keep my current setup. One of the competing blogs anniewersching(dot)net has the same set up as me (NGG with non-direct image links) and they seem to be getting full-sized images indexed. The only difference is they had permalinks rather than “pid=5275”. Since I just switched on permalinks I’ll see if this helps before changing templates and whatnot.
One thing I’d like to ask after visiting your site (very nice by the way) is how you are getting “clean” title tags like that? All my <title> stuff starts off like “Picture 5272” which is ugly and useless. I assume you manually edited the PHP files but maybe there is a preference in NGG I’m missing.
(4) I have a sitemap plugin called Google XML Sitemaps which lists every post and page, so I am covered there already I think. (the sitemap URL is http://www.awesomeannie.com/sitemap.xml )
(5) An image sitemap also seems like a helpful thing for me to do. It seems like the code you posted was removed but I have it in the email so it’s ok. Several months ago I had seen a post that said it was coming in the next version of NGG, but I guess that hasn’t happened (yet?). I’ll do a manual sitemap for now to see if it helps getting things indexed, but hopefully a fully-automated one comes to NGG sooner or later.
Thanks again for all your assistance, you were a huge help!
@mikeg9999 , Most recent example of my URL with a NextGEN Gallery gallery is at: http://www.awesomeannie.com/2011/04/19/annie-wersching-hack-n-smack-2011-pictures/ it was posted on April 19 (two weeks ago, so that’s plenty of time for it to be indexed).
I’m typing the keyword “Annie Wersching Hack n Smack” into Google.com – my website shows up as the very first result (for me anyway, it might be personalized results) when doing the regular “web” search. So the post the NGG images were on has certainly been crawled and indexed by Google.
But then when I go over to Google Images it only shows a few of the (useless) 128×100 size thumbnails from that post as being indexed: not the full size high quality ~2,000×3,000 px images.
Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I don’t understand how Google can rank me as the #1 most relevant result yet refuse to index any of the images in that post? I can list a bunch of other examples where this happens. It’s kind of frustrating.