@JosephWright I added some text to the title and asked it to re-check but google decided it's an error page that should be served as 404 not 200. They don't suggest any way of telling them that isn't the case other than changing the text or serving it as an error page.
actually I was tempted to just delete it, if you onimt `\documentclass` you are more likely to get to `! LaTeX Error: \usepackage before \documentclass. `
@UlrikeFischer that is the problem. Google heuristics decided that is an error page that should be served with an http 404 status not a success 200 status, so it is flagging the site as failing in the google search console
@UlrikeFischer you can search but some google features are blocked and (probably) the google rank is affected, although they don't say exactly what the consequences are.
@DavidCarlisle Sorry, I didn't understand. Right now, I am keeping the fancypagestyle setup in a separate sty file. It's not working if I insert just \lhead{whatever} in main tex file!
no reason why it shouldn't work (although \lhead is the deprecated old form of \fancyhead[L] it should work the same way) as ever, better to make an example and ask a question on the question site rather than in chat with no example:-) @raf
@UlrikeFischer why can't the package define \zz to be the font and let the user use \zz{BQP} rather than defining every one two and three letter combination as a \BQP to do the same thing setting the command name in the font chosen?
@DavidCarlisle probably because of the variants like \ComplexityFont{Mod}_k\ComplexityFont{L}, or because he wanted to get an error for typos like \zz{BPQ}, or because the author didn't know \csname.
@DavidCarlisle well it is actually texify and it is like latexmk, if does more than one run and so does resolve the cross references, see the picture of the OP, there is "section 2". But the next time you call it you have to go through the whole lot again. (The real question is why using texify at all, imho it is a pain).
@UlrikeFischer not sure I underand how that \ref doesn't resolve then if it dous rm*aux pdflatex makeindex pdflatex every time it would be slow but work?
@DavidCarlisle I don't understand it either, I suspect that there is a bug in texify and timing is wrong, but I didn't care enough to investigate, I simply tell people to remove the clean option and this cures the problem.
@UlrikeFischer just added some more words so the percentage of words that were "error" decreased so google decided it was a real page. Not a very exact science.
@DavidCarlisle Hi, sorry, I wasn't here really. I don't see how that interacts with us direclty? Was the class updated officially, or do you suggest we tweak the template around a bug that's in IEEE's code?
@yo' you must at some point(?) make a decision about which classes you make available that aren't in texlive. Making available ones that are fundamentally broken isn't really your fault (you can't be expected to vet them all) but they could do with a health warning since the publisher unlikley to fix it) but my threshold for moaning to you and Paulo here is a lot lower than it would be for making an actual change request to Overleaf, so feel free to ignore along with general chat here.
@yo' trouble is if you change it too much you may find documents work on overleaf then fail when submitted to the publisher. So in a way it's probably better to leave the class as is and tell the users to put a fix in their documents. Or just keep your head down and ignore it:-)
@DavidCarlisle or prod the publisher about it. We've definitely done that before, playing the bad boys, so I'm free to do it again :D I'll put it on my list
@yo' thanks, maybe you have more "clout" with the publisher, I've more or less given up trying to get publisher classes updated I have tried three or four times now (not that one) and nothing happened with any of them.