« first day (2094 days earlier)   

dan
6:07 AM
@closetnoc Thanks for the update on the HTML editor quest, sounds like you found mostly what you were looking for. No idea on NextBook, but at $50 you can't go too wrong, especially given how fast hardware becomes obsolete these days. I've got a lot of gear that was pretty expensive at the time, just gathering dust now...
@john01dav Looks like the link to your question on Ask Ubuntu was truncated. Did you get an answer there? If not, you might want to flag it and request that it be migrated to Server Fault, since it seems a little too advanced for this site.
@Goyllo You asked that question on the right site. As indicated in the comments there, Stack Exchange is primarily served under HTTP still. Using the site: operator may return some HTTPS links, but most are indexed under HTTP (though you can request them under HTTPS if you type them manually). So the canonical tag they use for HTTP is correct, for now.
For example, if you look at the source for one of our questions, it does have HTTP for the protocol in the canonical link whether it's called under HTTP or HTTPS: webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/2/…
 
6:54 AM
@dan I eventually figured it out myself (phpbb's cache wasn't cleared). Thanks for the reply though.
 
 
4 hours later…
11:00 AM
@dan Have you check the link attached with it? Google first try to index https version if there is, and they have https version, but the canonical link point to http so the http version will be index, for question, the solution is fine, but for tags pages, like discussion tags, they don't use canonical link tag, so Google will index https version for tags pages.
And that tags pages(https) will be crawled by google spider, and they will see all the internal links pages also contain https, so which will be also crawled(Yes google crawl the pages that have different canonical URL), so which might consume more bandwidth.
I know Google is pretty handle to that kind of situation and don't consider it duplicate content, but why SO need to do that. Don't you think canonical link tag also should be present into tags pages as well?
 
 
2 hours later…
dan
1:21 PM
@Goyllo It sounds like you're just talking about Stack Overflow's tag pages. I'm sure they have the resources to handle crawling both sets of URLs, should that be occurring. I'd caution about reading too literally into even official blogs though. I can tell you based on lots of experience, not all sites are having HTTPS versions of URLs crawled first, and there's a list of exclusions there too that Stack Exchange's webmasters would know best about.
SO has been crawled systematically for a very long time now without any issues regarding indexing problems (just the opposite), so I wouldn't be too concerned about that. But you did post that question on the right site, so perhaps it will get a response there from someone in the know.
 
 
4 hours later…
5:09 PM
@dan There were a couple of other things I wanted also, but gave up on the idea since neither exist for the web, thought they ought to. 1: A resources/library manager to keep track of a large scale of articles, research papers, white papers, etc. so that they can be properly referenced with links. 2: A post topics manager so that the topics of posts can be properly organized hierarchically or through development and linking.
In otherwords, I have a rather large stable or resources I want to be able to reference more easily and I want to be able to properly organize what I have written and what I should write about.
One last thing I wanted was an editor, not HTML, that would give various meaningful semantic measures as I type so that I can more properly write meaningful articles, titles, etc., smartly aimed.
None of these things exists and they should have by now. With the web advancing as it has, we are still as webbernauts; winging it, shooting from the hip, following the guidance of the unwise, and making false measures. Tools for organizing resources, topics, and effective writing should exist and does not. Not even out of the web world.
 

« first day (2094 days earlier)