Recover Google rankings after overwriting one page with another and getting the duplicate content excluded

One of our pages was on page 1 of Google for a very important keyword. Some mistake from our developer team caused a disastrous issue in indexing that page. The parent page and the child page used the same content for a few days by mistake. Google then removed the child page from its index and kept the parent only, saying "Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonical".

I understand the issue. But I don’t know how to solve it! I have already brought back the original content on both pages and asked Google to reindex both pages through Google’s inspector tool in Search Console. But it doesn’t work! Google doesn’t index the child page anymore which is really crucial for us. Google has identified our child page as a duplicate of the parent page. I have re-written the whole content of the page and asked Google to re-index it again. No luck yet.

Do you have any solution for this issue?

Are undead and creatures immune to charm excluded from the HP count of Sleep?

From the spell description:

Sleep (…) Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures). Starting with the creature that has the lowest current hit points,(…) Subtract each creature’s hit points from the total before moving on to the creature with the next lowest hit points. A creature’s hit points must be equal to or less than the remaining total for that creature to be affected. Undead and creatures immune to being charmed aren’t affected by this spell. (PH p.276)

Now, to build the ascending order of their current hitpoints, the spell instructs to count everyone in area of effect, but only ignore unconscous creatures. Then later on it says that Undead and creatures immune to being charmed aren’t affected.

Are those two latter kinds of creatures excluded from the roll of current HP by default? Following the “if they were it would say so” philosophy of Sage Advice, it doesn’t seem so to me.

Is cubical type theory still consistent with univalent excluded middle and univalent choice?

I want to formalize some undergraduate maths in cubical agda, and learning cubical type theory in the proccess. The problem is that I will need univalent excluded middle and univalent choice (and maybe propositional resizing). I know these are consistent with homotopy type theory (although computation is lost when axiom are used), but cubical that type theory is stronger (in the sense that univalence is a theorem). Are this axiom still consistent in the cubical setting? Is there a better way of doing classical theorems in cubical type theory?

What does it mean for a cone’s point of origin to be included or excluded in the cone’s area of effect?

As part of the definition of a cone spell in the handbook:

A cone’s point of origin is not included in the cone’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.

As an example, what would either case be for a casting of Burning Hands?

Could the caster include themselves? or does this mean that they can exclude the first square of the cone?

What damaged a creature that is in an antimagic field from which it is excluded?

I read a lot about this topic, more precisely I base myself on what is stated here:

  • Does the feat Extraordinary Spell Aim affect the creature’s space or the creature? (and other linked discussion)
  • What happens when an anti magic field gets close to a polymorphed creature?

but about the Extraordinary Spell Aim + Anti magic field combo, I have not yet clear some points.

In all the following examples Jozan is a 15th level cleric with feat: Persistent Spell + Divine Metamagic applied to Persistent Spell + Extraordinary Spell Aim; and with anti-magic field from which he is excluded

As for the Extraordinary Spell Aim effect space, I agree with KRyan when he says that the PC is excluded from the spell’s area, not the square where the PC is.

For example, if Jozan takes Vadania (page 34, Player Handbook) close into a grapple, Mialee can cast a Fireball with the certainty of not doing damage to the druid. The spell has no effect on Vadania but takes Jozan because Jozan is excluded from the anti magical field, and not the square he occupies.

But what else damage Jozan?

  1. Do all spells targeting Jozan take effect? Does Magic Missile or Ray of Enfeeblement or Streamers do damage? What is the discriminate to understand which spell does damage and which doesn’t?

  2. Do the magic weapons used against Jozan and out of his anti-magic field have bonuses of some kind for hitting and/or doing damage? If Jozan is the target of an arrow, does he take damage if it is magical (for example if the arrow – and only this – is +1) or is fired by a magic bow (for example if the bow – and only this – is +1)? Does the archer have a bonus to hit roll, or to damage and to hit roll or to damage or to neither of the two?

  3. Do the magic weapons used against Jozan and in of his anti-magic field have bonuses of some kind for hitting and/or doing damage? If Jozan is the target of a Greatsword +1, would the enemy have advantages on his roll to hit or damage or both? If an Assassin attacks Jozan using Wraithstrike does this spell take effect when Jozan is attacked?

The item was deleted because it was excluded by a crawl rule

My search crawl is not working for my local site. On my Crawl Log I see a warning:

Item not crawled due to one of the following reasons: Preventive crawl rule; Specified content source hops/depth exceeded; URL has query string parameter; Required protocol handler not found; Preventive robots directive. ( This item was deleted because it was excluded by a crawl rule. )

Important information:

  • I just moved all my content databases to a newly installed Sharepoint on a new server
  • I am running Sharepoint Server 2019 Standard
  • When I change the address in the content source to full FQDN, the search works partially with many 401 warnings
  • The address in question is https
  • Same address with sps3 gets crawled successfully with no issues
  • There is no robots.txt file in the site

I tried and checked everything I could think of, including:

  • I checked that the default access account has access to the website
  • I browsed the website ( using a browser ) while being logging in using the default access account
  • I made sure there are no crawl rules
  • I created a new crawl rule to include the affected URL
  • I did “index reset”
  • I disabled loopbackCheck
  • I used Fiddler to monitor the traffic, the crawler is not even accessing the site

If you have any suggestions, please advice.

The law of excluded middle and decidability

I will divide my question in two parts. The first part I am sure that there is a objective answer, but I am not sure about the second part.

First part: Is it all (decisions) problems trivial to prove decidable after assuming the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)? e.g. There is no problem hard to prove decidable after assuming LEM.

Second part: Does make any sense to agree with a non-constructive proof that a problem is decidable?

Propositional truncation of excluded middle

It is clear to me that it should be impossible to prove :

exclMidl = isProp A → ((A) ⊎ (¬ A)) 

Because it would give deciding oracle for every Proposition.

My question is about the following Types:

exclMidl' = isProp A → ∥ ((A) ⊎ (¬ A)) ∥  

or

exclMidl'' = isProp A → ∥ ((A ≡ Unit) ⊎ (A ≡ Empty)) ∥ 

Are they provable in cubical Agda? What HoTT can say about them?

Those types would only state that propositions are either True or False but would hide information about actual Truthness of A, preventing us from constructing universal oracle, but allowing, for example, to do a proof for both cases even for undecidable propositions.

Is my intuition about such types correct?

Why Google Search Console coverage reports show excluded pages that don’t exist at all

My new website is only about a month old and it has only 27 different web pages. I submitted sitemap.xml to the Google Search Console and it successfully indexed all my pages. However, in the Coverage page apart from my valid urls I can also see 9.000 other Excluded urls and 21 Issues. When I open the details I see thousands of urls which don’t exist on my website at all! enter image description here

Here are some example links which don’t exist on my website but are reported: enter image description here Now comes the wierdest part, if I search for some of this urls on Google, for example "/телото-на-ленин-ќе-се-освежи-и-ќе-добие" I can clearly see that this is a url hosted by another website. While searching for these urls I found that all this urls are actually some older links from other famous Macedonian media websites. And it is not only one website but multiple different existing websites. This is very confusing to me. My website domain is https://www.vinozito.mk/