How to define Views filters and relationships for custom Civicrm contact fields that are indexed via Search API?

I followed the steps on skvare to index CiviCRM contacts via Search API, then to have Views list the contacts with the search box as an exposed filter.

I need to expose a filter that filters results based on what membership type the contact has. That might require a relationship, which is currently not an option in Views for me, so I might have to write a custom relationship handler as well as the custom filter handler. I have been trying to find the code to read to use as a guide but I have been unable to figure out whether these handlers are being defined in CiviCRM, Views, Search API, or the Civicrm Entity module which I’m also using.

How do you define a custom relationship and filter handlers for custom fields on CiviCRM contacts being displayed via Search API, CiviCRM Entity, and Views?

Could it be possible for a site to be indexed and cached but not show up in google search result?

My site is cached and indexed by Google.I have couple of thousands visitors per day. I have done every SEO check online but one problem persists. Despite abiding by Google webmasters’ guide, my site does not show up in google search results. Indeed, when I do inspect some urls they do come up on the first page, after two or three days everything is gone like never existed on google ever! I have tested everything that might caused the problem (e.g. no spammy or paid backlinks, etc.) but the problem gets worse day in and day out. My alexa rank has dropped drastically (one thousand) in a week. Any suggestions or recommendations are appreciated.

How to add additional related fields to a Search API Indexed View?

I’m using Drupal 8 and Search API module and am recreating a view of content but utilizing search api indexing. I cant seem to find a way to show the “Comment status (comment Count)” field.

There’s nothing under relationships that seems to unlock that field. How can I access those type of related fields when using a Search API index View?

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

Is there a simple image processor that can reduce image color depth (convert 24-bit RGB to 2, 4 or 8-bit indexed color)?

I have a need for a quick/easy image processing application under Ubuntu 18.04 that will allow me to view, crop, scale down and reduce color depth/color mode (number of color bits per pixel) – with and without dithering – of 24-bit JPG input images and export them as PNG. I’d like the option of reducing to 4, 16 or 256 colors (2, 4 or 8 bits per pixel).

GIMP has these capabilities, but I’m looking for something less bulky.

In Windows (and OS/2 before that!), I was a longtime user of PMView, a speedy viewer and processor. I can continue to use PMView through WINE (there is also an IrfanView app that works similarly through WINE), but I would prefer a Linux app.

I have tried a number of applications. I like the simplicity, cropping, resizing and even the color manipulations of gThumb. But gThumb does not allow me to save a PNG at less than 24-bit. Same problem with Shotwell and Mirage. I’ve had no luck getting usable results with Pinta.

Strict Positivity of Indexed Datatype in Agda

Agda is ruling out definitions like

data Bad : Set where  bad : (Bad → Bad) → Bad 

Because “Non strictly-positive declarations are rejected because one can write a non-terminating function using them.” (as one may read in Agda wiki). I know also that disabling strict positivity checking allows constructing inhabitant of empty type.

But Agda also complains about definition like this:

  data Bad? : ℕ → Set where     badZ : Bad? zero     badS : ∀ {n} → (Bad? n → Bad? n) → Bad? (suc n) 

telling me that:

Bad? is not strictly positive, because it occurs to the left of an arrow in the type of the constructor badS in the definition of Bad?. 

What i know is that i can create valid definition without inductive datatypes:

  Bad?′ : ℕ → Set   Bad?′ zero = Unit   Bad?′ (suc n) = (Bad?′ n) → (Bad?′ n)     badZ′ : Bad?′ zero   badZ′ = tt    badS′ : ∀ {n} → (Bad?′ n → Bad?′ n) → Bad?′ (suc n)   badS′ x = x 

My question is:

Can “Bad?” datatype lead to similar inconsistencies, and this is the reason why it is rejected by Agda?

Or is it the case that positivity checking in Agda is too “cautious”, and can’t figure out that indexing is making it strict positive?

Get Your Site Indexed By Google And Get You 13 SEO Backlinks for $15

Just give me the URL of your site, and I’ll make sure it gets indexed by Google AND I’ll throw in 13 extra “Who-Is” Backlinks! Costumers usually report their websites getting indexed within 24 hours of delivery (you need to give Google’s spiders some time to crawl the web)! This does NOT mean that your site will suddenly jump to the front page of google or anything like that, but if your site is just starting out, this can be a GREAT way to get your website started!

by: wael199069
Created: —
Category: PBNs
Viewed: 132


Webmaster’s error that makes Google indexed a.com/url with b.com instead

I have a bit issue. My website domain is a.com. For some reasons, i need to change/move to a new hosting. While doing this on my new host, i accidentially made an redirect error that make my urls (.htaccess): a.com/article-1/ redirect to b.com (b.com is not related to me)

Finally, i have fixed that error. The original url a.com/article-1/ is accessible on my website now normally, but it is not found on google search, it’s b.com intead when i type original url in search box. I lost a lot of traffic and time with this. It has been a week.

My question: How to fix/update SERP on Google? Will Google update automatically a.com/article-1/ again? Is it just matter of time? Anything that harmful my site in this situation?

Thanks for reading this.

Non-indexed or indexed top hierarchy pages get high PageRank at Google?

Hi,

We are creating some pages just to capture leads from blog-posts. We created few pages at top hierarchy like website.com/new-page/. I’m just wondering if these pages will take away more PageRank. Do we need to create these pages at low hierarchy like website.com/folder/new-page to avoid passing more PageRank? Is this is how PR distributed even now and it’s same for indexed or non-indexed pages?

Thanks