I have a Web Site where at the bottom I show the most searched keywords in the site. This keyword are all physical locations.
You know if there is a schema on Schema.org vocabulary for add meaning to this items?
If the keywords are linked, each of the linked pages could be a SearchResultsPage.
For the links to these pages:
WebPage defines the property relatedLink, but it’s questionable if the top search phrases are really related to each of your web pages (I’d say they are not). And note this property expects a URL, not a WebPage (or SearchResultsPage) item.
Apart from relatedLink, there doesn’t seem to be a property that would be suitable for referencing (links to) top search phrases.
If you want to mark it up as some kind of list, you could use ItemList (I’d only go this way if you think the list is important). Note that you can’t use relatedLink in combination with that.
tl;dr: Use SearchResultsPage for the search result pages. Leave the footer links to these search result pages alone.
Related
category links for which i haven't created custom pages are displaying as red links. i was under the impression that actually creating a page is optional for category pages.
a typical situation can be :
an article is called up.
one of the category links at the bottom of the page will be red.
clicking on the link will take me to a valid category summary.
clicking on another category link at the bottom of the article (a white one) will
also take me to a valid category summary.
returning to the article, the second category link is now also red.
is there a way to tweak the wiki so category pages are displayed in white, regardless of whether they have a custom page created for them ?
the wiki is running MediaWiki 1.29.1.
as it turns out, the problem was that the styling for a.new and a.new:visited appeared with a higher precedence than that for catlinks. unless the desire is to require every single wiki to have every single category be fully defined [i.e., providing a landing page for each category], this isn't a good approach.
one of the great powerful features of mediawiki is its capability that allows admins and maintainers to categorise articles as they wish without requiring them to create a landing page for every single category. however, if this is your goal, the styling won't support it as-is, due to this precedence problem. you can insist on precedence for catlinks however, by appending !important. although many people detract from the use of !important, this use case is pretty much textbook for the reason it was designed in the first place.
if your need is more in line w/that envisioned by the maintainers of the current mediawiki release [i.e., you want to have a hand-designed landing page for every single category and have no need for truly automatically-generated categories], this is a non-issue.
The colors are set using CSS, you should create new CSS and add it to MediaWiki:Common.css to apply it to ask skins. If this page does not yet exist just create it.
The ‘.catlinks’ class controls the formatting of links to categories, and the colors for wanted pages are defined by the ‘.new’ class, eg a.new, a:new:visited.
The original code can be found in the mediawiki/resources/src/mediawiki.skinning/interface.css file.
Just add CSS to fix the font colors to those you choose to Common.css, eg
.catlinks,
.catlinks a.new,
.catlinks a.new:visited {
color: #0645ad;
}
I'm trying to learn how Microdata works and I was looking at the Schema.org website and I kinda get how the basics works because you can find some outlined examples online of the Navigations, Headers, Sidebars and Footers - but I don't understand what properties you can use with more complex item types.
Let's say I have an About page on my site.
Nothing fancy, you just talk about your business but there is a item type http://schema.org/AboutPage you can use.
So I visit that link but to be honest everything you see at that page isn't really written down for beginners I think.
Am I allowed to use all the item properties listed on that specific page or only the the selected few in the Thing section at the bottom of the page because the above two sections are part of WebPage and CreativeWork? I don't have the CreativeWork item type on my page, just the WebPage attached to my HTML body tag.
I always thought you could use those item types as snippets in your HTML to wrap pieces of HTML content together and you didn't need to work with an inherited workflow. Going from wrapped content inside WebPage → CreativeWork → AboutPage item types.
How to find the items types and which properties you can use within them?
First note, you can’t use the vocabulary Schema.org with Microformats. You probably confused it with Microdata, which is one of three syntaxes the Schema.org partners support (the other two are JSON-LD and RDFa). (I edited your question accordingly.)
You may use all properties that are listed on a type’s page.
A type in Schema.org always inherits from all its parent types, up to Thing. So, for example, the type AboutPage is also a WebPage, which is also a CreativeWork, which is also a Thing. You just have to use the most specific type that applies in your case.
For finding appropriate types, simply start at Thing and check the "More specific Types", linked on that page. And repeat.
Another way would be to search for some related keywords on the list of all types and check if a suitable type exists.
The problem is if you're unfamiliar with XML and Schemas because schema.org is as friendly as they can be without actually giving more examples of it, simply because stuff like this is indeed complex to make generic enough to reuse, while verbose enough to explain.
However there are some Google tools which can help you learn:
https://www.google.com/webmasters/markup-helper
https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/
And register for Google Webmaster Tools account, and use their data highlighter and test.
Use that in combination with the schema.org examples and definitions, and then you'll properly relatively fast start learning which tags to use and how to nest them.
I have a query regarding CQ. Your reply will really make the difference to my understanding.
In other CMS like Vignette, content authors create the contents separately (not directly on the page) for ex. products details and then those contents are iterated / processed to display on the page. But in CQ, the scenario is other way round. Authors directly create the content on the page. Now if same content is needed on other page, how will that be re-used ?
Regards,
Ronak
Content can be reused across pages via Reference components. From the docs:
The Reference component lets you reference text in another part of a
CQ based website (within the current instance). The referenced
paragraph will then appear as if it was on the current page. Instead
of referencing a specific paragraph, the path can also be modified to
specify an entire [paragraph-system]...
There are some other techniques for sharing content and reference data across pages, including inheritance and "data components," described in this SO Q&A.
I am creating a site for electronics and programming projects and articles, and I'm trying to figure out whether to use categories, tags or both. I've been leaning towards just using tags, as it's done here on StackOverflow.
Seen from the perspective of the user, what provides the best user experience and makes the information easy and intuitive to find. I realize that this is much a question of personal preference, but I am interested in hearing opinions.
Here is what I ended up doing: I implemented both categories and tags; a post can only have one category but multiple tags.
The category is used as part of the URL, this puts a keyword in the URL which is good for SEO and it makes the URLs more structured. The categories are selected from a drop-down menu, and they are required. Categories are type specific, meaning articles will probably not have the same categories as projects or images.
articles/foobar // Show all articles with the category foobar
articles/1/foobar/article_slug // View a specific article
Tags can be added and attached to a posts simply by typing them with comma separation, they are used in the meta keywords field. I don't think that matters much to SEO, but they are available so why not. Multiple tags can be attached to a post, but at least one is required. Tags are not type specific but universal, meaning that all resources may share the same tags. So a search for a tag may return articles, projects and images.
tags // Show all tags, and number of resources that use them
tags/foobar // Show all resources with the tag foobar
articles/tagged/foobar // Show all articles with the tag foobar
We know that there are standards that if some site implements them it will be compatible with zotero.
Is there any standard for multiple scrapping?
Which standard should be implemented by site developers in search result page?
Re-posted from the Zotero forum:
unAPI (preferred) and COinS both work with multiple items.
The other methods don't work for search results.
As an example for unAPI see e.g. inSpire:
http://inspirehep.net/search?p=citedby%3Aauthor%3Aellis+-refersto%3Aauthor%3Awitten
An example for COinS on search pages there's e.g. Harvard's new Hollis catalog:
http://hollis.harvard.edu/