I have used Bing MAP API
With Basic Key for Non-Profit organization.
Above API given inconsistent result with “200” status code and “OK” status description.
Some time it gives Estimated Total 0 without any other tags and some time it gives Estimated Total 1 with all Locations.
Try this example.
Martijn Pieters - An identical answer was added as Stackoverflow couldn't find the other answered question, even though I had it open in another tab. Thus, I reposted the answer so the question asker could get an answer.
Related
I've been looking through some of the NEAR demos and came across the one regarding posting quizzes that can be answered for a reward.
Source code here: https://github.com/Learn-NEAR/NCD-02--riddles
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4jP2a2mbiI
My question is related to how secure the answer hash is. In the current implementation, the answer hash is returned with the quizzes, but I imagine it would be better if that wasn't the case. Even then, if the hash was stored on the NEAR network without it being returned by any view functions, how secure would that be? If there was code in this contract to only give a certain number of guesses per account before denying additional attempts, would someone be able to get the hash through some other means and then have as many chances to answer as they want by locally hashing answers with sha256 and seeing if one matches?
Thanks,
Christopher
for sure all data on chain is public so storing anything means sharing it with the world
one reasonable way to handle something like this would be to store the hash but accept the raw string and then hash it to compare the two for a possible win
if you choose a secure hashing algorithm then it would be nearly impossible to guess the required input string based on seeing the hash
update: it was poined out to me that this answer is in incomplete or misleading because if the set of possible answers is small then this would still be a bad design because you could just quickly hash all the possible answers (eg. in a multiple choice question) and compare those hashes with the answer
heads up!
everything in that GitHub org that starts with NCD is a student project submitted after just a week of learning about NEAR
so there is a huge pile of mistakes there just waiting to be refactored and commented on by experts in the community
the projects that are presented for study all start with the prefix sample
those are the ones we generated to help students explore the possibilities of contracts on the NEAR platform along with all our core contracts, Sputnik contracts and others
sign up to learn more about NEAR Certified Developer Programs here: https://near.training
Can any API programmers answer a question about the Feedly API? I would like to know what these mean exactly in the Feedly API: Score, Coverage, CoverageScore and EstimatedEngagement.
These are leftovers from experiments we ran in our feed search engine.
"coverage" and "coverageScore" are roughly based on the ratio of entries read vs. entries published (higher score = readers are more likely to read entries published by this source).
"estimatedEngagement" is an average value for the engagement of entries published by this source (see the entries API for details).
"score" is a compound value of these and other values; it was used to showcase the best sources in the search results.
I hope this helps.
As per this link : here
It's clear with &addressdetails=1 the response can be broken down into Elements.
Problem is, I've looked at a series of responses for different osm_id's and the element list can include very different, additional elements, which are not present in this example. (e.g or )
Is there a list I can get which documents all the possible Elements that can be sent back? I cannot find this documentation anywhere.
There is currently no documentation about the possible elements, except for the source code.
The responses are defined by the tags found in openstreetmap.
Since OSM allows arbitrary tagging it isn't possible to define all the possible tags but you can find a list of the specifically supported ones here:
https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/blob/master/lib/lib.php#L334
I have a question about Yahoo answer api. I plan to use (questionSearch, getByCategory, getQuestion, getByUser). For example I used getByCategory to query. Each time I call the function, I can query max 50 questions. However, there are a lot of same questions which have been queried in previous time. So How can I remove this redundent ?
The API doesn't track what it has returned to you previously as its stateless.
This leaves you with two options that I can think of.
1) After you get your data back filter out what you already have. This requires you checking what is displayed and then not displaying duplicated items.
2) Store all ID's you have showing in a list, then adjust your YQL Query so that it provides that list of ID's as ones not to turn. Like:
select * from answers.getbycategory where category_id=2115500137 and type="resolved" and id not in ('20140216060544AA0tCLE', '20140215125452AAcNRTq', '20140215124804AAC1cQl');
The downside of this, is that it could effect performance since your YQL queries will start to take longer and longer to return.
Good afternoon. The ga:adCost metric and the ga:date and ga:referralPath dimensions are compatible, according to the reference doc. But when I query for these three values:
https://www.google.com/analytics/feeds/data?ids=XXX&dimensions=ga%3Adate%2Cga%3AreferralPath&metrics=ga%3AadCost&filters=ga%3AadCost%3E0&start-date=2011-04-21&end-date=2011-05-05&max-results=50
I get no results. Removing the filter does not change the outcome. If I remove ga:referralPath, I get expected results, with many records with non-zero ad cost. Other Campaign dimensions are OK, such as ga:source and ga:medium, though apparently ga:adContent is also no good.
At least one other person has seen very similar behavior (blog here). I've considered that it could be due to sampling and rounding, but it persists for very small date ranges.
Is there a workaround? ga:adCost is not allowed with ga:transactionId, which is the only unique identifier of which I'm aware, and even that only applies to customers who make a purchase.
I think that the problem is due to there not being a referral path for AdWords visits recorded in Google Analytics. If you want to see where AdWords visits are coming from then you need to use the other campaign dimensions (source, medium, campaign, keyword and adContent).