OllieMackJames

Hi Ryan, Sure, more than happy to discuss this topic. Just hope it helps. This is one thing I have been studying a bit over the years, I am not a programmer and can not give back anything regarding programming or modules, but my intention is to give back something to the pw community and this is a bit of my expertise so that is why i jumped in. You said: "Another thing to consider is that your site can't be penalized for who links to you, or in what quantity. Only those linking to you, and the value of the links [to you] can be penalized." This I hear so often, but it just is not what I see back in facts that I have studied. In principle your statement is valid as in this is how it should be, but there is a difference in how things should be and how they are. Exactly because other people now can damage your site by throwing thousands of useless links at your site, big ole g finally opened a link disavow tool in the webmaster area, and the sheer existence of the link disavow tool to me proves that links can and do hurt your rankings, but let me go another way to see if I can help a bit 'forward wise' with developing vision for processwire seo street smarts. I still am totally in favor of first giving vistors what they are looking for, always have been and will be because they butter the bread. My main focus is all on building sites so smart that they are a honey pot to visitors, so they stay around etc. and share etc. etc. And for PW the best thing of course is people talking about it and sharing the greatness of it as a tool, and at the end and the beginning of the day that will take you the furthest, and there your brilliance and processwire's community's brilliance already really shines! OK, what would I propose to do? I would do something along the folllowing lines: - make a module that does the following (I would have to hire someone to do this, but hey, I would do it like this): * upon going live with a site, and upon handing over the site: ask people if they want to show the world one time on their whole site that they use processwire under the hood * then I would ask people as well to simply choose what attracts them the most in this cms: = ease of use ==> anchor text: processwire used here because we love this easy cms = search engine optimisation simplicity ==> anchor text: we chose processwire, the seo cms number 1 = it was the choice of our designer ==> anchore text: processwire, the cms of choice of designers = Etc. Etc. whichever you think would be the reasons people can go for pw = other: open ended anchor text. The last option in the module would then be, where they wanted to share this link JUST ONE TIME ON ONE PAGE: home page footer, about us page, sitemap, whatever. I would try to stay away from sitewide footer or sidebar links, because that is not healthy. It is much better to have IP diversity in the back links and have anchor text variety. This way processwire would get the best of many worlds: - marketing information regarding what makes people choose or like about processwire - VERY VALUABLE - good ip variety of sites linking back - anchor text variety of backlinks Thanks again!

Ryan, I am all for white hat, but I know of sites that never did anything at all with link building, only focused on the best content on their topic, yet on april 24th last year many of those totally white hat sites also got totally floored, after the dust settled and it became clear what to investigate, and figure out the specific april 24 update, we ran backlink profiles on sites that had NO backlinks built to it that were not purely organic, in other words these backlinks just pointed to the site because other people just for whatever reason decided to link to the site. BUT the anchor texts just used one basic term tyoo often to g's liking. The back link profile apparantly incurred an algorithmic penalty. And the traffic went down the drain... And the other example I gave was because a company who built themes, thought it smart to have all these themes come standard with a link pointing back to the makers of it. I have come to grow into the conviction that it is not about white or black hat, there is something else going on here. It is about freedom, and about one big monopolithic party sending out bots sniffing everybody's sites and ripping all that content and throwing it into a database and then manipulating the database to present search results. And they make a living showing clickable ads on top and to the sides. All fine and dandy, play by the book, but the book now shows that if you get too many people linking back to your site with the anchore text processwire, the day may come that big ole g will just refuse to show your site even for our very own name. Don't ask if this will happen; it happened before and it still happens. So Ryan, if you are in for the long haul, and I hope and trust you are, imo you must guard and protect also your long term search results. And if you start asking for attribution links, you do well to realise you could be setting yourself up for consequential damage. And that would not be nice especially if it can be prevented. Now if you would have a module that does this, why would that be anymore white or black hat than asking for a link back to show what drives the site? Here's how I think about it more and more: I love my freedom, freedom to build sites with great content. And I respect g's freedom to sniff my sites and many other sites. And if based on what the g-bot finds it decides to put my site on top, more power to them. Ryan, you asked: "Would you install this on your sites knowing that the purpose of it was to come up with random variations on keywords to boost pagerank for processwire.com? :)" First of all, this is not about page rank, it is about showing up in the search results. Second: here's my reply question to you: do you Ryan, founder and bright mind behind processwire, want to totally hand over your search results future to an outside entity that is driven by bottom lines and will and does use algorythms to do stuff that can easily incur penalties to your bottom line? BTW, fine either way with me, I just wanted to chime in and add my 2 cents seeing you are treading dangerous waters if asking for backlinks, without controlling things that can do damage. Great CMF btw, I am loving it more and more!

Thanks Onjegolders (short for On You Go Type Of Guy?) I'm learning, this way of doing it was just too much repeating work. I managed to get it done like I asked on another post in the forum. Now I only make each ad once in a different page and then call that in via another setting as per http://processwire.com/talk/topic/3185-how-to-reference-image-from-one-page-into-other/ Thanks for thinking along though!

Makes sense in makes sense indeed, slowly getting my head around PW and how php works, never did much of that but this time around (after years of having all done for me) I decided to dive in a bit and seeing it is all logical, it starts to make more and more sense and I even enjoy it as well. With lots of help of you guys here, thanks!

src='{$sidebarAd->images->first->url} Thanks diogo, that works. I will add a new field for the ads with only one image allowed. And then will use: src='{$sidebarAd->images->url} Thanks again Manfred62 and diogo.

images is the name of the field that is used I tried your suggestion as well, but that did not work. src='{$sidebarAd->images->url}{$sidebarAd->images} does work, would like to know how to get this in one go still though. Thanks

Thanks Manfred62 and diogo, it is getting closer, but still not there, now it returns me: src="/site/assets/files/1097/" so I figured the following might work: <img src='{$sidebarAd->images->url}{$sidebarAd->images}'alt='$sidebarAd->title.' width='400' height='289'> and that did the trick. Thanks for thinking along, I do not fully understand why it can not get it in one go, but this seems to work.

I am trying the following: I have added a structure to my site: - Sidebar Ads - Side Ad Number One - Side Ad Number Two These Side Ads have the folllowing fields: - title - page_url (url of site I want to link to) - page_target_blank - meta_description - images In sidebars I specify per page which ad to show, through another added field called: SidebarAds I am now using the following code in the article template, which seems to almost work, only problem is that I can not see an image. <?php if(count($page->SidebarAds) > 0) { if($page->id != 1) { echo '<div class="col_12 sidebar">'; } ?> <h3 class="col_12 header">NEW Self Help Program</h3> <ul class="related col_12"> <?php foreach ($page->SidebarAds as $sidebarAd) { $target = ($sidebarAd->page_target_blank == 1 ? ' target="_blank"' : ''); echo "<li class='col_12'><a href='{$sidebarAd->page_url}'{$target}><img src='{$sidebarAd->images}'alt='$sidebarAd->title.' width='400' height='289'></a></li>"; } ?> </ul> <?php if($page->id != 1) { echo '</div>';} } ?> If I look in the source, the source shows: src="name-of-image.jpg" without the proper url to make it show up. I hope this makes sense, so the question is how to change the code so it shows the image correct. Thanks!

OK, found it on the forum somewhere else, I'll leave the answer here for whoever needs it again... (probably me after I forget again..) Here is what works: <?php if($page->sidebar_ad) { echo '<h3 class="col_12 header">NEW Self Help Program...</h3>'; echo '<div class="col_12 sidebar">'; echo $page->sidebar_ad; echo '</div>'; }?>

I have a sidebar where I want an ad to appear, based on the ad placed in a textarea field. Here's the code I am now trying, but the conditional check does not work. It always shows '<h3 class="col_12 header">NEW Self Help Program...</h3>'; the condition does not work. <?php if(count($page->sidebar_ad) > 0) { echo '<h3 class="col_12 header">NEW Self Help Program...</h3>'; echo '<div class="col_12 sidebar">'; echo $page->sidebar_ad; echo '</div>'; } ?> What I want to happen is only show all the echo stuff only if the sidebar_ad field is populated. Thanks!

Soma, thanks lots, that does the trick! Slowly working my way up to some copied skills here with PW!...

@Soma, thanks, yes structure like you said is correct /article/ /article/page1 /article/page2 And on each page (article and child I would like to see a snippet as output like the following: <details class="pw-toc" open="open"><summary>In this article</summary> <ol> <li><a class="active" href="http://mydomain.com/article/">How Processwire beats any CMS handsdown</a></li> <li><a href="http://mydomain.com/article/page2/">3 Mistakes You Should not make in choosing a CMS</a></li> <li><a href="http://mydomain.com/article/page3/">Can you do this with your current CMS</a></li> </ol></details> So if I use on the article page: $root = $page; echo $nav->render(null, $page, $root); // $nav being instance of the module and on the child pages: $root = $page->parent; echo $nav->render(null, $page, $root); What step is then further needed to produce the output like above? Oh and just for anybody's information, stuff like this usually drops your bounce rate in most cases with 20-30% easily, so google clearly loves it, thanks!

Newbie question... I donwnloaded this great module, but now run into some trouble, how can I do the following: In order to reduce bounce rate I want to split up longer pages in sub pages. I want to have the following structure for the pages that will be split into more pages topic - topic/page2 - topic/page3 - topic/page4 - topic/page5 then on each of all the pages above I want a clickable TOC just for this topic and its sub pages How to do this so it is as much automated as possible?

Done on couple sites, but here's a suggestion. Ryan, if you want to get up high in the serps for certain phrases, why not add this as a module to PW: Add a special attribution module In which you: 1- choose the keyword phrases you want to rank for 2 - make sure these are used in (random or you specify the weight) variation in the attribution phrases and let your module take care of the variation Reason you want anchor text variation is to guard against G's - over-optimisation penalty, which means do not get all anchor texts to be the same, because in the end this will seriously hurt your rankings. I forget now, but there was an example of a big site that I think sold templates, who got ditched for their seo rankings simply because all sites out there linked back to them with one anchor text term, which led big G to believe they over-optimised their back links and wham, they got the penalty and went way down the serps. If you make this a module that does it all on automatic, you could even update the module to keep on checking your anchor text variations and bring your backlink-profile in line with what you want to rank for. Just my 2 cents.

I pretty much explained why I left modx evo for processwire in a reaction to a post made on the modx forum and also added my 2 cents to the discussion on Marc Hinse's site . What started me was that I ran into php 5.4 troubles on my modx evo sites and therefore started looking around. Then I had one site ported from modx evo to processwire, and now I have decided to move all my modx evo sites to processwire. PW is extremely fast, I use the procache module. I also use lots of different sized pics on some of my sites and the thumbnails module just is incredible, it makes life sooooooo much easier in the front end, I can not even believe anymore how I used to crop and resize all different images offline and upload to different TV's in modx evo. I now just upload one image and the module does it all and allows me to choose the cropping. Do I sound enthusiastic? Sorry about that, but I am! Thanks Ryan, for a brilliant cms/cmf and thanks to the great people on board who are really making this thing a really kick-ass seo cms! I am not a developer, not a designer, I just get people to port a design I like and then fiddle around with the html so it ends up high in the serps. OFcourse there is more to it than that, but for what I need I want a csm that allows me to change anything and everything with ease. ANd now PW even has a heatmap module, can you believe what that means for tweaking your bounce rates and visitor retention? Ah well, better stop now. Processwire is GREAT!

Awesome module, really like the idea of heatmaps, a while ago I paid good money to see what happened on my site. Now piwik has a standard overlay feature, showing even percentages for the clicks, and now this again... When are the good things ever going to stop? Thanks Luis for your work, will try on a site after the weekend.

Thanks for the link, nice confirmation for my choice for pw.

Thanks Georgson for the suggestion, will look into that! Thanks for chiming in Jeroen, btw, Jeroen ported this design from modx evo to PW, did a great job while at it, so Jeroen, thanks again! Thanks, glad to hear it is fast on your end as well, kudos to Ryan for the procache module that drives that!

www.a-cat.nl any comments or suggestions for improvement?... or is no one into sailing small and fast catamarans?

Here's my first processwire site: www.a-cat.nl ported from modx, the design was already ported from wordpress to modx. HTML Kickstart is used for the basic structure. I had someone do the porting from modx. There are still a number of layout issues with it, having to do with html kickstart margins mainly, but all in all this site is pretty much as I like it. The amazing and awesome apeisa thumbnails module is used to make all the images that are used all over the place in this site, that really makes a difference in speeding up writing new articles, I used to crop the images offline, but now it is a snap. The site also uses the ProCache module, so tell me how fast it feels. Any suggestions welcome! I am sooo happy I found processwire, I come from modx evolution which was/is absolutely great. Processwire is what I hoped modx would grow into. If you want to know why I now went for processwire read the former leading german modx guy who really nailed it for me in this page where he explains why he left modx and went for processwire. With processwire I might have to learn a bit more about php, but from what I see so far processwire really delivers on speed, flexibility and simplicity..

OK fixed! I had to reinstall a few things on my server, so it had nothing to do with this plugin. Just for anybody's information, I am on a freebsd server, using directadmin and had to go to: /usr/ports/graphics/jpeg and make deinstall, then I had to make reinstall then I went back into :/usr/local/directadmin/custombuild and run ./build php to rebuild php with all options, I chose to reinstall all options to get php compiled with GD supprt for jpeg This module is truly awesome!

One step further... I uploaded a png file and now the module works as it should, it correctly creates all the right sized images. So it seems the trouble lies with jpg files. Any ideas?

OK, so I see that ImageSizer.php needs gd2, and on my server phpinfo says: gd GD Support enabled GD Version bundled (2.0.34 compatible) FreeType Support enabled FreeType Linkage with freetype FreeType Version 2.4.11 GIF Read Support enabled GIF Create Support enabled JPG Support enabled PNG Support enabled WBMP Support enabled XBM Support enabled So it looks liek I have the extension I need for this to work, yet it does not work, any ideas?

Hello Horst, Thanks for posting in the other thread, yes I think it might have something to do with the resizer, but I am not familiar enough with how it all works under the hood so to speak. The new site is on 2.2.15 as well, I reverted one to 2.2.9 and that did not make any difference either. I wonder if anyone can say what dependencies the cropping feature needs for php extensions etc, I am almost inclined to believe it has to do with that. The plugin itself seems to work partly, as in: - after upload it makes different named versions of exact the same sized image, no cropping applied whatsoever - when forced to do a manual crop it ends up making a new 0 sized version of the image, which freezes the page in the back end and the front end. thanks

I have a strange thing happening here. I ported a PW 229 site with this working plugin from a development server to another server and when I upload a new image it shows just the same image in one size for all the thumbnail versions. When I click on one image to crop, it shows the extra window and then I can select the crop section allright, I then click on crop and go and get the page that says: wow that looks great, but no image shows up, when I click on wow that looks great I return to the image and when I now hover over the just cropped image, it shows an empty little hover screen where before it showed the uncropped image, if I then click save article I get the following error: small_xxxx.jpg is an unsupported image type and then the whole page is not accessible anymore. When I go into site/assets/files/files/1023 it shows small_xxxx.jpg with a filesize of 0, once I delete that I can access the page again. When I check the log file it says: 2013-03-02 21:37:55 guest http://www.xxx.xxx/ Error Exception: small_xxxx.jpg is not a recogized image (in /xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx.xxx/public_html/wire/core/ImageSizer.php line 92) I then upgraded to pw 2.2.15, same story. I also tested on a new site (PW 2.2.15) on this same server and after uploading I went into the site/assets/files/1081 dir and see featured_3145-xl.jpg 173.068 size homefeatured_3145-xl.jpg same 173.068 size page_3145-xl.jpg same 173.068 size reference_3145-xl.jpg same 173.068 size So the module does replicate the files upon upload, but does not resize. And after crop it changes the images size to 0 and prevents the page from showing in the front end AND the backend, I can only access the page in the backend again after deleting the 0 size image Both sites now on PW 2.3 (=2.2.15?), but I took one site back to 2.2.9 stable and same issue. Only difference between servers is OS, dev server was ubuntu (I think) new server is FreeBSD.