In some Google ads I have found that the hyperlink hrefs look like this
href="s-p: Go to XYZ.com"
These work, but I cannot see the code that translates the s-p: bit into an actual url.
What 'veil of ignorance' am I peering behind, please? I would like to know how the conversion is done. What technology is in use here?
This is an AdSense issue - see the ads that come between the article and the comments on this page:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/foreclosure-fraud-for-dummies-1-the-chains-and-the-stakes/
From the link given, the question is about links like this:
<a href="s-p: Go to XYZ.com"
onclick="advert_cookie(); window.location='http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/[...]'; return false;">
XYZ.com
</a>
To answer the question, no conversion is done: the JavaScript onclick handler sets window.location to the given URL, so the (invalid) href attribute is simply ignored.
The most probable answer is that this is a Wordpress plugin for adwords that displays the adds in this particular way.
I had never seen it before so dont take my word just yet but I´m looking into it!
The link behaviour is generated by Javascript snippets provided by Google, and not the browser itself. Hence the text is explicitly set by the Google code, and they chose to show that text for some reason unknown to me.
I know of no browsers supporting the s-p protocol as-is. Custom browser plugins may provided that functionalty, but I haven't heard of any.
Related
I'm trying to build my own social sharing links on blogger
but the problem is that data:post.url doesn't retrieve the URL of the current post, it seems like it doesn't work at all.
And here's what I'm trying to do in more details:
1) I'd like to create my own sharing links so that my website runs faster than using third party plugins/websites — which usually inject tracking .JS and are not SEO optimized.
2) I'm totally aware that for data:post.url to work, I should first add the expression expr followed by href... for ex: expr:href
3) So the final code for a facebook sharing button is like this:
<a expr:href='"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=" + data:post.url' rel='nofollow' target='_blank' title='Facebook Share'><i class="fa fa-facebook" aria-hidden="true"></i></a>
When I hover my cursor over Facebook sharing button (or click on it), I get http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u= without the current URL which means that data:post.url is not working
Is there a solution or an explanation to this?
Thank you.
Problem solved!
After that I posted this question here, I opened an old blog I made a long time ago for testing purposes and started observing the code until I found a similar one, which means that the above is correct.
I did a test, I pasted this one right before the closing </body> as I used to do and it didn't work. I then tried to paste it in front of the original code and guess what? It worked with no problem!
Well, it's totally normal, thanks to an article I read after that, I found out that there are two types of data: Those that can be accessed anywhere in the theme (Global) and those that can be accessed only under their appropriate widget (Local).
So data:post.url is a local type of data which can be accessed only under Post widget!
If you'd like to see a similar code functioning, search for Blog posts widget and paste it there under it.
To find Blog Posts widget, open the HTML of your theme, then on your keyboard click on CTRL+F and type Blog posts, you will be directed to title='Blog posts', paste your code anywhere between <b:widget title='Blog posts'... and </b:widget>. Save the changes and then visit your website to see how that perfectly works!
For my share buttons, I used another type of data that can be accessed anywhere in the theme: instead of data:post.url, I typed data:blog.url so that I can put the code right before </body>.
If you'd like to see how it works on my blog: Click Here
It should be work. But if not, have you try to remove that double quotes on that facebook link? 'http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=+data:post.url' how it goes?
We run a Ruby on Rails 3.2 web application that uses a standard mix of rails and jquery.
Recently, we noticed a strange div element appearing in our production code. It seems to only show up when we render views with strings that also contain hyperlinks.
Here's an example:
We have a string in our view, that we want rendered as HTML:
"Try to search <a href='/search?q=hiring'>hiring</a>"
When we render the page in production though, we get the following:
"Try to search <a href="azarvuttcexyytzq.html" id="qqqqtra" rel="file">trufarwdstrzyzdyw</div>."
We're not sure why but the following div is being appended to our link:
<div style="display: none;">trufarwdstrzyzdyw</div>
What's strange is that we don't think that the file azarvuttcexyytzq.html exists on our servers, and we also found out that "file" is not an acceptable rel value for a hyperlink's relation attribute.
So, where could the div be coming from?
One thought is that it is coming from some analytics library in our system, since we're using Google Analytics. But we can't seem to confirm that idea or rule it out.
Does anyone know of a library that causes behavior like this?
Any help or insight would be appreciated.
If there is no developer who has done this (intentionally or otherwise) by appending a div with a random hyperlink in your application, then there is a high probability that your application server, some library or a gem you are using is compromised. It would be good to do an audit of your code/server and ensure that you are using the original version of all the gems and libraries and no malicious code is otherwise included in your app code.
We had the exact same issue, although intermittently, and it was Distil networks injecting in our case. To verify we took Distil out for the site and it worked like a charm!
Although, have yet to find how to get it working with Distil, will update the answer if/when we do
We had the same issue, our application behind Distil as well as in other comments.
If you use Distil, read this:
https://help.distilnetworks.com/hc/en-us/articles/235705127-Optimizing-Honeypot-Links-for-Pages-with-Inline-JavaScript
In short: Add the following comment near the top of your page (and above the JS) to force Distil injection to happen there: </a> -–> You can also add any other custom, a unique comment which Distil could use to inject the honeypot link code into.
I just set up Facebook social plugin comments on my site, but I'm having a little trouble with them. When I get a notification saying that someone commented on something I commented on, if I click on that link I see no comments, but if I reload the page without the ?fb_comment_id=... then I can see the comments.
For instance:
http://www.5crideshare.jessepollak.me/rides/17?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150513336718064_21937866_10150513339773064&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment#f82002554
shows no comments, but
http://www.5crideshare.jessepollak.me/rides/17
shows comments.
Any ideas on what might be causing this?
Thank you very much,
Jesse
Because Facebook supposes that they are two different pages. While you are adding the plugin to your page, pay attention to data-href value.
Make your data-href value constant for the same page, although it may be requested with different URLs with extra querystrings.
When I look at your page source, clicked from notification:
<div class='fb-comments' data-href='http://www.5crideshare.jessepollak.me/rides/17?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150513336718064_21937866_10150513339773064&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment' data-num='{:posts=>2}' data-width='500'></div>
</div>
On this page, data-href value should be without unnecessary querystrings. It should be like this same with clear one: http://www.5crideshare.jessepollak.me/rides/17
I have an html page, and I need a link to show that the user would be going to 'example.html', when really, the link goes to 'javascipt:ajaxLoad(example.html);'.
I tried this:
Example
But it didn't work. Any help? I already asked the webmasters stackexchange, and they told me that this would be a javascript programming question. Not an html question.
Example
By returning false you prevent the default action. And this way the links will still work when javascript is disabled, but then you don't get the AJAX functionality.
Just point the href at the actual file. The javascript onclick will take precedence - as long as you take care to disable the actual click effect by doing a "return false" or similar, the status bar will show 'example.html' and not the javascript url.
As well, note that it should be javascript:... (you're missing an r). The onwhatever attributes are already assumed to be javascript, so you could just say onclick="ajaxLoad(...) anyways.
Look, I'm not sure if I got exactly what you're asking about here, but the following fix often works with me. Just change the double-quotes to single-quotes, and put double-quotes around the example.html part
<a href="example" onclick='javascipt:ajaxLoad("example.html");'>Example</a>
I have been using a noscript tag to show a warning when users have JavaScript disabled or are using script blocking plugins like Noscript. The website will not function properly if JavaScript is disabled and users may not figure out why it is not working without the warning.
After the latest Google algorithm shuffle, I have seen the daily traffic drop to about 1/3 of what it was in the previous months. I have also seen pages that were ranking #1 or #2 in the SERPS drop out of the results. After doing some investigating in webmaster tools, I noticed that "JavaScript" is listed as #16 in the keywords section. This makes no sense because the site has nothing to do with JavaScript and the only place that word appears is in the text between the noscript tags.
It seems that Google is now including and indexing the content between the noscript tags. I don't believe that this was happening before. The warning is three sentences. I'd imagine that having the same three sentences appearing at the top of every single page on the site could have a damaging effect on the SEO.
Do you think this could be causing a problem with SEO? And, is there any other method to provide a warning to users who have JavaScript disabled in a way that won't be indexed or read by search engines?
Put the <noscript> content at the end of your HTML, and then use CSS to position it at the top of the browser window. Google will no longer consider it important.
Stack Overflow itself uses this technique - do a View Source on this page and you'll see a "works best with JavaScript" warning near the end of the HTML, which appears at the top of the page when you switch off JavaScript.
<noscript> is not meant for meaningless warnings like:
<noscript>
Oh, no! You don't have JavaScript enabled! If you don't enable JS, you're doomed. [Long explanation about how to enable JS in every browser ever made]
</noscript>
It's meant for you to provide as much content as you can, along with a polite mention that enabling JS will provide access to certain extra features. You'll find that basically every popular site follows this guideline.
I don't think using <noscript> is a good idea. I've heard that it is ineffective when the client is behind a JavaScript-blocking firewall - if the client's browser has JavaScript enabled the <noscript> tag won't activate, because, as far as the browser's concerned, JavaScript is fully operable within the document...
A better method IMO, is to have all would-be 'noscript' content hidden by JavaScript.
Here's a very basic example:
...
<body>
<script>
document.body.className += ' js-enabled';
</script>
<div id="noscript">
Welcome... here's some content...
</div>
And within your StyleSheet:
body.js-enabled #noscript { display: none; }
More info:
Replacing <noscript> with accessible, unobtrusive DOM/JavaScript
Reasons to avoid NOSCRIPT
Somebody on another forum mentioned using an image for the warning. The way I see it, this would have three benefits:
There wouldn't be any irrelevant text for search engines to index.
The code to display a single image is less bulky than a text warning (which gets loaded on every page).
Tracking could be implemented to determine how many times the image is called, to give an idea of how many visitors have JavaScript disabled or blocked.
If you combine this with something like the non-noscript technique mentioned by J-P, it seems to be the best possible solution.
Just wanted to post an interesting tidbit related to this. For a site of mine I have ended up doing something similar to what stack overflow uses, but with the addition of a "find out more" link as my users are not as technical as this site.
The interesting part is that following advice of people aboce, my solution ditched the noscript tag, instead opting to hide the message divs with javascript. But I found that if firefox is waiting for its master password, this hiding of the message is interupted, so I think I will go back to noscript.
If you choose a solution based on replacing the div content (if js is enabled, then the div content gets updated) rather than using a noscript tag, be careful about how google views this practice:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66353
I'm not sure google will consider it deceptive, but it's something to consider and research further. Here's another stackoverflow post about this: noscript google snapshot, the safe way