Posts by Nachtwind

    When it's coming from the horse's mouth... Directly from Google or Bing themselves and not just some random rumor or myth posting... But directly from Google or Bing... You either take it seriously or you're not serious about your sites.
    I cannot take anyone seriously who would not take Google and Bing's own advice seriously.

    You do know that the big search engine distributors ALL make a fuzz about keeping their search logic in the dark to keep the advantage on the market they might have? A suggestion on how to improve the display of your ranked entry is simply not the same as a direct indication on what impedes the ranking itself. That's two different things. As long as Google doesn't classify it as an error you can always assume that it might enhance your ranking if present but will not impede your ranking if not. That's what I'm saying.

    When it's coming from the horse's mouth... Directly from Google or Bing themselves and not just some random rumor or myth posting... But directly from Google or Bing... You either take it seriously or you're not serious about your sites.
    I cannot take anyone seriously who would not take Google and Bing's own advice seriously.

    You do know that the big search engine distributors ALL make a fuzz about keeping their search logic in the dark to keep the advantage on the market they might have? A suggestion on how to improve the display of your ranked entry is simply not the same as a direct indication on what impedes the ranking itself. That's two different things. As long as Google doesn't classify it as an error you can always assume that it might enhance your ranking if present but will not impede your ranking if not. That's what I'm saying.

    And what notices do they keep giving you?


    I've several sites top listed in both google and bing and don't provide any structured data at all beyond what came out of the box (funnily, they are all powered by Woltlab).


    Again, please don't fall for the myth that any suggestion either one is giving is indicative for something their rating algorithms are actually based off.

    Did you happen to clear the cache by chance after making your adjustments? Both the application cache and your browser cache?


    Things like metatags, especially if media related tend to be shaky in their reliability at times. And as a professional webdesigner I have run into more than one inconsistency when it comes to browser agent spoofing, especially with Apple devices. That made me prefering to test changes to my code directly on the affected devices/browsers.

    No, it won't. You'd need to apply media queries to keep this from looking bad on mobile devices.


    Simply put the following around it:


    Code
    @media only screen and (min-width: @wcfLayoutMinWidth) {
    ...
    }

    That is, if you're using a flexible width (you should.)

    Well, it DOES suffice for the average requirements.


    But as soon as you start thinking about things like "user experience" you are more or less required to customize said experience.
    It's the same with every other community software. They always have a nice set of features out of the box but there also are always tidbits that could be optimized for your target audience.


    The mobile view is one of these things. Applying the modification I've already provided doesn't take 5 minutes (plus say 10 minutes to tweak it to your design). That's hardly warranting to call Woltlab's product "mobile unfriendly".

    I can see what you mean (and it's actually sth I've also thought in the past) but using the woltlab style out of the box isn't recommendable either. Nonetheless, this would be an easy fix to apply on their side (as you can see)

    It's not missing but rather hidden by default in the mobile view.


    Add the following to your advanced styling:



    Play around with the values in the first line to setup wether this should be shown always or just in "landscape mode". Of course, you could simplify this statement if this is to voluminous for your liking :)

    Besides, typographically speaking it is completely wrong to have ANYTHING before a bullet point. They are navigation points in your information structure and should not be diluted by anything. Thus, one should actually try to avoid having anything more distinctive as the bullet points during a list.

    I mostly author my changes using a browsers tools (mostly chrome) and apply them directly to the site, then copy them to the style field.

    Regardless of the implementation in the different board softwares this approach has become more or less the standard workflow for designers.


    Thus I'd like to claim that the way it's done in burning board is the most open and most straightforward approach for designers even though inexperienced users might be having an easier time figuring out what declaration does what with the way IPB does it. Different target audiences I'd say.

    If you don't find working with the 'everyone'-group to be intuitive enough then why don't you simply deactivate everything for that group? That way you won't ever have to deal with it again (that is, until you install a package affecting it).


    There are more upsides than downsides on why to have this group around and the forementioned workaround works good enough to not warrant removing the group.


    It's simply one of these idioms a community software has like XenForo and nodes or IPB and it's hooks.