| transactions | | 0. | | ref_block_num | 15,305 |
|---|
| ref_block_prefix | 295,052,152 |
|---|
| expiration | 2020-05-23 20:42:54 |
|---|
| operations | | 0. | | 0. | vote |
|---|
| 1. | | voter | splines |
|---|
| author | rezoanulvibes |
|---|
| permlink | do-grabbing-and-locking-work-for-self-defense |
|---|
| weight | 10,000 |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
| extensions | [] |
|---|
| signatures | | 0. | 1f1ce06eda0f412ef6c5ee16598db80d9238d39b59a3f6b4067c520fdf389aab84703d751310633823988a817f6067d0fb8da497bbf03c638e3946e656daff52f1 |
|---|
|
|---|
| transaction_id | 67e14994593f78d2f3f8966e4bb83e242bc65955 |
|---|
| block_num | 43,662,300 |
|---|
| transaction_num | 0 |
|---|
|
|---|
| 1. | | ref_block_num | 15,305 |
|---|
| ref_block_prefix | 295,052,152 |
|---|
| expiration | 2020-05-23 20:42:54 |
|---|
| operations | | 0. | | 0. | account_witness_vote |
|---|
| 1. | | account | maruskina |
|---|
| witness | yabapmatt |
|---|
| approve | true |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
| extensions | [] |
|---|
| signatures | | 0. | 1f1de528bbce01ef1c8a6693926d0d2ef2bbdbc29532b7525f64ed9cf8d50ad3140e9743782e0e86b3d17658f96eac36cfd0b584f8062716c03c58a795fe799f9c |
|---|
|
|---|
| transaction_id | 202f29e43bede783a10eeb6d906d9b08c27d3399 |
|---|
| block_num | 43,662,300 |
|---|
| transaction_num | 1 |
|---|
|
|---|
| 2. | | ref_block_num | 15,305 |
|---|
| ref_block_prefix | 295,052,152 |
|---|
| expiration | 2020-05-23 20:42:57 |
|---|
| operations | | 0. | | 0. | comment |
|---|
| 1. | | parent_author | holger80 |
|---|
| parent_permlink | re-lextenebris-qasw8p |
|---|
| author | lextenebris |
|---|
| permlink | re-holger80-qasx2x |
|---|
| title | "" |
|---|
| body | "> Thank you for your reply. I think that the content producer itself should be able to decide about the canonical link of his content.
Except, of course, that they can't. Literally can't.
The content producer can only express their intention to their method of publication. Their method of publication presents whatever they tell it to. But on a blockchain-supported social media platform, there are multiple ways in and multiple ways out. Each and every one of the multiple ways out of the blockchain is exactly as canonical for a reader as every other egress, and there is absolutely no way to differentiate between them on the reader side. In fact, that is often touted as one of the strong points of blockchain-supported social media systems, that you can interact with the content through your choice of interface platforms.
As far as Google is concerned, the only canonical link is one referenced by some other page – and the canonicity can only be known from read context.
Any other effort is to force an individual application creator to deliberately redirect traffic from the system which they believe to be superior (their own) to some other platform. As it's been pointed out, no sane platform creator would do that. As much as I like PeakD, it would be absolutely wrong for other platforms to be forced or even to be strongly encouraged to make all of their canonical links point away from their service.
And they would be stupid to do so. That is essentially just removing themselves from any kind of search representation.
> I rewrote the introduction and I created a python script [How to fix canonical URLs and links in your pre-fork posts](https://peakd.com/hive-139531/@holger80/how-to-fix-canonical-urls-and-links-in-your-pre-fork-posts) that let the user decide which front-end and which blockchain should be set as canonical URL for their content.
I am completely in support of the ability for people to manage content that they've already written to change canonical links. That is the choice for individuals and, to borrow a phrase, "between them and their God."
> Using a canonical url in the correct way (all frontends use the same canonical url) helps search engines to
>
> * indicate which front-end should be shown in search results
> * validate that there is no duplicate content
This is still wrong, however.
Mainly it's the use of the word "correct." It is not "correct." It is "in accordance with an asserted standard." It would be perfectly correct for a new Hive portal to come along and ignore the canonical_URL field. It just wouldn't be in accordance with the standard that you are trying to create by assertion.
I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying it's not right.
If we are going to create an implicit standard for Hive social media portals, let's have that discussion in a very open and direct manner and have more than a sort of backdoor RFC process for it. Making rules for other people without gathering their consent is, in a very ironic way, how we got into this mess in the first place.
Show me a Hive Portal Developer Community where people developing current and future portals go to agree on things that work, and I'll be thrilled. That doesn't seem to be happening here, it just looks like some people throwing something together ad hoc in order to try and decertify content which legitimately is able to be surfaced through Steemit portals. That is canonically (pun intended) kind of dirty pool." |
|---|
| json_metadata | {"tags":["seo"],"app":"peakd/2020.05.4"} |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
| extensions | [] |
|---|
| signatures | | 0. | 1f2643c10480c9826f186c639ae628b649841b98fd8a602efbe201234953db9ac9416e4cd76405c49ee94edd9a6159cc5989b8bc161086678e24ac3b96ba281655 |
|---|
|
|---|
| transaction_id | 3ca48193cad26a90a1523b44082f94613849f1d3 |
|---|
| block_num | 43,662,300 |
|---|
| transaction_num | 2 |
|---|
|
|---|
| 3. | | ref_block_num | 15,305 |
|---|
| ref_block_prefix | 295,052,152 |
|---|
| expiration | 2020-05-23 20:42:57 |
|---|
| operations | | 0. | | 0. | vote |
|---|
| 1. | | voter | created |
|---|
| author | electrodo |
|---|
| permlink | una-raya-en-la-orilla |
|---|
| weight | 100 |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
| extensions | [] |
|---|
| signatures | | 0. | 1b45bcdb64f8d5e74da4b03e859bb3d2e0d0e37b182eb3fae1906a45115d9561602572d06f4d17c4b9f311843e2fee21689241b232a29c7a8949e8fe0163536781 |
|---|
|
|---|
| transaction_id | 57f0cc6d6840e5307b1a8325fbd0524d55b9c0fe |
|---|
| block_num | 43,662,300 |
|---|
| transaction_num | 3 |
|---|
|
|---|
|
|---|
hiveblocks