SEO in topics module

[hgs]

@hgs
Do you know what the diffrece is between the 0.5 and 0.6 version and where is the "fork"?
Thanks!

Excuse me, I'm not a coder, I'm "only user"
So I can not explain the difference to you.

But maybe there is a coder, the version 0.5 on security concerns and strict-mode for mySQL, which runs with WB2.10 and php7, was to be read above.

[sky writer]

I definitely was not trying to drag up some old debate.  I know there have been many LONG discussions about the fate and future of WB, which I have been a part of, but I don't recall a conversation specifically about AMASP and the confusion it might cause future users.

You, a forum Global Moderator, provided a link to AMASP.  I was curious that you linked to AMASP and not the WB addons, for a module which I have been happily using for years.  So, I did some homework and realized that simplepagehead in not included in the WB addons.  I was surprised by this, so I asked my initial question... "why"?

You answered and then after some other member post suggested as issue with "so many" sources, you wrote that many mistake AMASP as the official addons repository which is not good because many of the addons are not up to date.  And then you wrote:

its of course possible, to take all addons from this source (it's open source and the most autors are not longer active for wb), make a recoding, where its needed and collect all in the official WB-Addons, but who will do this? i ask for this, because, i was thinking, it's a good job for the time between two releases, but it was no time for this. Other problems were more important and that I have to accept.

Maybe it's my translation, but I read this as you tried to implement the transfer of the AMASP modules to WB addons, or asked the Dev's to consider this between WB releases, but it was not accepted as other dev work was more important.  Sorry, if this is not what you meant.

So, reading this, I tried to add some weight to your point and offer reasons why this would be beneficial to WB, and some associated suggestions on how to lessen the "AMASP is the official WB addons" confusion.  I was not demanding anything.  I am quite happy to get addons from AMASP or any other source.  I was essentially trying to point out that someone new to WB and the forum might find their way to AMASP, see how out of date it is, and think WB is dead.  But if these useful addons were on the official WB addons page then the forum links would be to the WB page, not AMASP.  That was all I was trying to say.  If this is not seen as an issue to anyone else, I apologize for casting more light on it than necessary.

Your Ruud example is not applicable in my opinion, as I said nothing that would suggest I want to take food out of the mouths of developers.  Ruud is a well respected and active WB developer who keeps his site and offerings up to date... and I AM a happy paying customer.  Many of Ruud's modules are included on the WB official Addons page.  So, I don't see the similarity to AMASP here.

I have invited you very often, to be a part of the tester-team, the developer-group, the homepages-administration, but no reaction.

Are you sure about that?  I have asked often over the years how I might be able to help in some way, given my limited ability.  On the couple of occasions that I have been included in "tester-teams" I spent a great amount of time testing the modules and core, with the best of my limited ability, to provide feedback.  Much of which was implemented.  But to be honest, often I got the impression I was seen as more of a bother, perhaps because I am not as knowledgeable about the topics or procedures.  This is not insulting to me.  But I did try to help.  I have also assisted with translations (modules and WB installation text itself) when requested.  Other than that all I seem to be able to offer are suggestions such as the one that got this discussion started.  My contributions are barely a drop in the ocean compared to the likes of you and the main Dev's, but I have tried when I was afforded the chance and I could find the time.  I have reacted.  Some might even say, I have over-reacted. 

All the best to you.

[Gast]

at Sky writer: it's very simple for me: a user ask for a help and i try, to give him a working solution. and if wb has this solution not in the core and also not a solution in the addons area, it's no problem for me, to give a advice to a extern source.

Again, I am not trying to be negative or gang up on you for your efforts to help.  I am just giving an outsider's perspective on this situtaion.

It is easy to demand from the outside, the other now do this job and collect all modules, rework and take over in the addons. But why the others, why not you?
You do not have to be an expert to help, you do not have to code or fix. But it takes time and also the will to contribute here. Install, test and analyze an addon every week. Install possible fixes and test them again, summary maybe 20 h / week. a german proverb means: many hands, fast end - it's simple and true
i'm not in the position here, to give a direction, but i'm trying to help with my work and my time. yes, i've the permission to add Addons, but i've also a private opinion: i dont add modules with actual development from other sources
simple example: ruud make's a fantastic job and spend a lot of hours every week, to develop addons and every addon can be a part of our addon area. Why not a link to Dev4me here in the post's and maybe a possible customer for Ruud?
Simplepagehead: Chio is the developer and the latest version is published for the WBCE-Fork. what do you think, whats happend, if we publish this latest version as our work?? not fair in my eyes - if we need a addon like this, somebody from the community have to spend some hours, to build a addon like this - but dont forget, it's my personal opinion, not the official rule

ask the owner of AMASP to make it VERY clear that AMASP is NOT the official WB addons repository.  Even better would be this notice plus an obvious link to the Official WB Add-ons page.

myself and some other users try this for a long time, but no answer. the owner was part of this community in the "golden times" and it looks, that there is not interest

any forum suggestions to get addons from AMASP should be accompanied with some details or a warning, especially if said addon is not up to date.

please follow our discussions here and maybe its good, to think about the words in a answer. title of this topic was: SEO-Title in topics (module), specially for keywords and metadescription in the topics module
my answer was a link to a working version of simplepagehead, download, install and it's work - no warning needed

I took the time to make objective comments and suggestions on a perpetual issue, in what I consider a constructive manner.  Your response is ridiculous and childish.

i'm trying to explain, why I not add the a module from a extern source and why we not have all the addons from AMASP in our Addons and it looks, that you read nothing of my words. its not the first discussion for us about this. i'm sure, this discussion goes over many years and hundreds of PN's and Postings.
I understand: a big pool with tousend of plugins is the secret of wordpress and other bigger cms and if we have a pool like this, we're back in the TopTen of the best CMS. For a Addon-Pool like this, you need also hundreds of developers - do you have a developer for or an unpaid full-time job???
I have invited you very often, to be a part of the tester-team, the developer-group, the homepages-administration, but no reaction. help us, to test and rework all addons from AMASP (like my words in the top) and then we have a pool, but without your help, it looks for me like: you make the job and i'll waiting for the results 
i guess which direction your discussion will go and you know my opinion about it from thousands of words over the years. It is pointless to explain it again and again and therefore I wrote that I would rather be silent in the next discussion on this topic. This is neither ridiculous nor childish

[johnbroeckaert]

@jacobi22
Don't stop giving advice. I tried the recomended module and it runs smooth WB2.10 php 7x
And frankly if a module does what it is promissing without an error its fine with me !

so many?

For  me there are many sources. WB.org WBs.com dev4me.nl and wbc.org to mention the biggest.


@hgs
Do you know what the diffrece is between the 0.5 and 0.6 version and where is the "fork"?

Thanks!

[sky writer]

I took the time to make objective comments and suggestions on a perpetual issue, in what I consider a constructive manner.  Your response is ridiculous and childish.

[Gast]

no problem for me to be quiet next time

[sky writer]

...websitebakers.com is a private project, no longer up to date...
...the most of them are too old now and produce errors in newer php-versions....
...the "problem" is: Many users think AMASP is the official WB addons

Maybe these "problems" are not helped by undefined posts such as yours:

simplepagehead is the secret -> http://www.websitebakers.com/pages/modules/various/simple-page-head.php

As well meaning and helpful as you (always) are, if the version of simplepagehead on websitebakers.com does not qualify for use with the current version of WB, then it should not be so quickly recommended, at least not without fair warning.  And if it is suitable for use with the current version of WB, then it should be available in the official WB Add-ons.

I agree that many users think AMASP is the official WB addons, because for a long time, it was, at least in my experience it was THE place to source addons.  The seemingly connected nature of the AMASP (unofficial) page and the official WB site and WB forum will continue to be a source of confusion, and because the AMASP has become all but abandoned, it threatens to cast a similar shadow on WB as a whole.

As busy as the Dev's and Admins continually seem to be, ignoring these matters is doing your good work a disservice.  Here are a couple of suggestions:

   
• ask the owner of AMASP to make it VERY clear that AMASP is NOT the official WB addons repository.  Even better would be this notice plus an obvious link to the Official WB Add-ons page.
• any suitable AMASP Addons should be brought to the WB official Add-ons repository.  Yes, it takes time, but it's essential to WB's survival and mass appeal.
• any forum suggestions to get addons from AMASP should be accompanied with some details or a warning, especially if said addon is not up to date.

Again, I am not trying to be negative or gang up on you for your efforts to help.  I am just giving an outsider's perspective on this situtaion.

[crnogorac081]

Yes most of addons produce php errors but they can work with more or less changes. And I still use WB.s.com for inspiration. Who owns it by the way, I see still it is running (which is good )

[Gast]

Is it not a pity that there are so many sources?

so many?

WebsiteBaker.com is our main domain, redirected to WebsiteBaker.org
and websitebakers.com is a private project, no longer up to date. last updated module was the wb-forum in may, 2016, the most of them are too old now and produce errors in newer php-versions. the idea behind this project was good, but if you no longer have to deal with WebsiteBaker, why put more time and effort into the project? so i understand also the owner of this domain.
the "problem" is: Many users think AMASP is the official WB addons

its of course possible, to take all addons from this source (it's open source and the most autors are not longer active for wb), make a recoding, where its needed and collect all in the official WB-Addons, but who will do this? i ask for this, because, i was thinking, it's a good job for the time between two releases, but it was no time for this. Other problems were more important and that I have to accept. the other point: its a community and i miss also some input from the users

What qualifies a module / snippet / template to be included in the "official" WB Add-ons pages?

must be running in the actual wb-version and the reqirements for this version and also in Mysql-Strict-Mode without any errors and notices.

requires PHP-5.6 and up!
Note: using PHP-5.6 is set deprecated!
PHP-7.0 and higher is highly recommended!

we're testing this addons from time to time (from WB-Version to WB-Version), but not every time, when PHP publish a new version, so, if somebody detect a problem in our wb-addons, pls send a info to the admins hgs or jacobi22


and specially to simplepagehead: i use a very old version with a lot of individual changes, specially for social medias. i'll not publish this version, because, it's not my work and! there is a actual development for this addon in the forks. I do not want to decide whether this addon is added or not and i'm sure, i know the answer, if a developer take a look into the code. it was okay for 2011/2012, but it's not up to date for the actual coding standards (PHP 7.x / Mysql-Strict-Mode etc)

[hgs]

Is it not a pity that there are so many sources?

I also saw that Manuela is registered as the owner of WebsiteBaker.com. Is that THE Manuela (darkviper)?

simplepagehead is currently "only" on WebsiteBakers.com
WebsiteBaker.com is redirected to WebsiteBaker.org

I see only 1 source for simplepagehead in Version 0.5 for WebsiteBaker

For a fork there is an adapted version 0.6

I like to bring simplepagehead into the addon area. An OK of the DEV's provided.

Sorry for GoogleTranslate

[DarkViper]

Yes, that's her...   
It is THAT Manuela.  *gg

[johnbroeckaert]

Is it not a pity that there are so many sources?

I also saw that Manuela is registered as the owner of WebsiteBaker.com. Is that THE Manuela (darkviper)?

[Gast]

Code Select Expand

Is there any reason simplepagehead has not been included?
simple answer: nobody sent a request to add this module in addons. normalize the module autor send a form with all needed datas like description, screenshot etc. its not possible, to scan the threads every day for a new version of module xy and not every published version of a module is a stable version

[sky writer]

What qualifies a module / snippet / template to be included in the "official" WB Add-ons pages?  Is there any reason simplepagehead has not been included?

[johnbroeckaert]

That is indeed the secret.

simplepagehead is the secret -> http://www.websitebakers.com/pages/modules/various/simple-page-head.php

Now unlocked!

Thank You very much @Jacobi22

[Gast]

simplepagehead is the secret -> http://www.websitebakers.com/pages/modules/various/simple-page-head.php

[johnbroeckaert]

Hi all.

I am using the module topics and found out that the title, keywords and metadecription of all pages are the one from the page where I put the module on.
The module itself is asking for metadecription and keywords but it seems they are ignored.
Is there a way to fix this?

Thank you!
John