Search Results

Search found 824 results on 33 pages for 'ranking stackingblocks'.

Page 2/33 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Ranking - Part II

    - by PointsToShare
    © 2011 By: Dov Trietsch. All rights reserved   Ranking Part II In my introduction to ranking I also introduced the Ranking Game. This is actually a much more sophisticated program than the one we need to simply rate an item, but it introduced you to the sophisticated results that you may achieve by a bit of code and accompanying CSS. In this installment, I am going to handle simple rating with 5 stars. The extra sophistication will come in the form of creating new elements in run time. Why do I need this? I like to be able to extend the SharePoint New and Update forms and put the starts in them simply by using the code shown here. We do not even need to go into SPD. We may achieve this simply by adding a content editor web part; more about this in the next installment. I have created a new page – Rank the Author – in which you may praise me in 5 different ways, but not immediately. The ranking mechanism – the 5 stars – has to be created first. To achieve that, click the “Add Element” button on the screen and then proceed in giving me the appropriate number of stars. Now view the source and see how this extra 5 start element was added. Also see how the ranking is achieved. This, obviously, is not any different in principle than what we did in the Ranking game. We create some sophisticated HTML, Add some style and create the element by: var divString = "<div id="rateMe" title="Rate Me...">    <a onclick="rateIt(this)" id="_1" title="ehh..." onmouseover="rating(this)" onmouseout="off(this)"></a>    <a onclick="rateIt(this)" id="_2" title="So So" onmouseover="rating(this)" onmouseout="off(this)"></a>    <a onclick="rateIt(this)" id="_3" title="Passable" onmouseover="rating(this)" onmouseout="off(this)"></a>    <a onclick="rateIt(this)" id="_4" title="Not too Bad" onmouseover="rating(this)" onmouseout="off(this)"></a>    <a onclick="rateIt(this)" id="_5" title="Not Bad" onmouseover="rating(this)" onmouseout="off(this)"></a></div>";m = document.createElement("p");m.innerHTML = divString;m.className = "blah";function AddElement(){    y = document.getElementById("Rest");    y.parentNode.insertBefore(m, y);} When you look into the full code, you’ll notice that I have added an empty <div id=”Rest”> into the form. A div element, like p, creates a line break, but the main purpose here was to mark the place above which I wanted to add the stars. Now you may hover over the stars, see how they behave and click on one of them to see that the program can react to your selection. That’s all folks!

    Read the article

  • Higher Ranking is Not Enough

    Higher ranking is not enough for your website or your business. Higher ranking is only a tiny fraction of what an effective search engine optimization should lead toward and higher ranking by itself is an ineffective online business goal. Effective Search Engine Optimization must be goal oriented.

    Read the article

  • Does spreading content across domains improve ranking? [closed]

    - by usertest
    Possible Duplicate: The SEO Benefit of Breaking Up Content Onto Different Websites I was wondering if (assuming all your content is related) it would be better to put all your content under a single domain or multiple domains that link to each other. Lets say I have Site A which doesn't have a good search ranking. If I have a new product that I'm sure could get a good ranking on its own would I get a better search ranking for Site A if I - Add the new product as a new section to Site A. Or put the product on new Site B and link back to Site A. To give you an example if you were developing a few browser plugins would it be better (in terms of ranking) to showcase them all in the same site, or would you give them each their own domain's that link to each other? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Optimize slow ranking query

    - by Juan Pablo Califano
    I need to optimize a query for a ranking that is taking forever (the query itself works, but I know it's awful and I've just tried it with a good number of records and it gives a timeout). I'll briefly explain the model. I have 3 tables: player, team and player_team. I have players, that can belong to a team. Obvious as it sounds, players are stored in the player table and teams in team. In my app, each player can switch teams at any time, and a log has to be mantained. However, a player is considered to belong to only one team at a given time. The current team of a player is the last one he's joined. The structure of player and team is not relevant, I think. I have an id column PK in each. In player_team I have: id (PK) player_id (FK -> player.id) team_id (FK -> team.id) Now, each team is assigned a point for each player that has joined. So, now, I want to get a ranking of the first N teams with the biggest number of players. My first idea was to get first the current players from player_team (that is one record top for each player; this record must be the player's current team). I failed to find a simple way to do it (tried GROUP BY player_team.player_id HAVING player_team.id = MAX(player_team.id), but that didn't cut it. I tried a number of querys that didn't work, but managed to get this working. SELECT COUNT(*) AS total, pt.team_id, p.facebook_uid AS owner_uid, t.color FROM player_team pt JOIN player p ON (p.id = pt.player_id) JOIN team t ON (t.id = pt.team_id) WHERE pt.id IN ( SELECT max(J.id) FROM player_team J GROUP BY J.player_id ) GROUP BY pt.team_id ORDER BY total DESC LIMIT 50 As I said, it works but looks very bad and performs worse, so I'm sure there must be a better way to go. Anyone has any ideas for optimizing this? I'm using mysql, by the way. Thanks in advance Adding the explain. (Sorry, not sure how to format it properly) id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 PRIMARY t ALL PRIMARY NULL NULL NULL 5000 Using temporary; Using filesort 1 PRIMARY pt ref FKplayer_pt77082,FKplayer_pt265938,new_index FKplayer_pt77082 4 t.id 30 Using where 1 PRIMARY p eq_ref PRIMARY PRIMARY 4 pt.player_id 1 2 DEPENDENT SUBQUERY J index NULL new_index 8 NULL 150000 Using index

    Read the article

  • PHP MYSQL query result "RANKING"

    - by fkessler
    Hi, I need to get a list of users Ranking by points and from my command line (MySQL) is was able to generate the necessary code: SET @rank=0; SELECT rank, iduser, pontos FROM ( SELECT @rank:=@rank+1 AS rank, SUM(points.points) AS pontos, points.iduser, users.name, users.idade FROM points INNER JOIN users ON (points.iduser = users.id) WHERE (users.idade >= %s) AND (users.idade <= %s) GROUP BY points.iduser ORDER BY pontos DESC) AS totals WHERE iduser = %s The problem is that I need this to run on AMFPHP and I´ve tested it in a test PHP file and seems that I can´t use the SET and SELECT in the same "mysql_query". I´ve looked and some used to mysql_query to do this (I´ve tested it and it works), but can I trust this to be effective and error free? Does it work like in MySQL transactions or setting the @rank in a seperated query may cause unexpected results?

    Read the article

  • Can preventing directory listings in WordPress upload folders cause Google ranking drops when they cause 403 errors in Webmaster Tools?

    - by Kelly
    I recently moved to a new host that blocks crawling to my uploads folders but (hopefully) allows the files in the folder to be crawled. I now show many 403 errors for each folder in the uploads folder in my Webmaster Tools. For example, http://www.rewardcharts4kids.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ shows a 403 error. For example, I can access this file: http://www.rewardcharts4kids.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/lunch-box-notes.jpg but I cannot access the folder it is in. My rankings went down after I moved to this host and I am wondering if: this could be the reason. is this how files/folders are supposed to be set up?

    Read the article

  • Does redirecting old site's URLs to new site's front page hurt a page's ranking?

    - by Kaivosukeltaja
    An old site that is being rewritten needs to have it's URLs redirected to the new site. There are a few hundred pages that may or may not have corresponding pages on the new site, probably with different slugs, and adding mappings manually will require more hours than we can spare. It was suggested that all old URLs be redirected to the new front page, but I remember reading somewhere that this confers a penalty in page rank because it's what link farmers do. Is this true or can we take the easy way out?

    Read the article

  • Ranking - an Introduction

    - by PointsToShare
    © 2011 By: Dov Trietsch. All rights reserved Ranking Ranking is quite common in the internet. Readers are asked to rank their latest reading by clicking on one of 5 (sometimes 10) stars. The number of stars is then converted to a number and the average number of stars as selected by all the readers is proudly (or shamefully) displayed for future readers. SharePoint 2007 lacked this feature altogether. SharePoint 2010 allows the users to rank items in a list or documents in a library (the two are actually the same because a library is actually a list). But in SP2010 the computation of the average is done later on a timer rather than on-the-spot as it should be. I suspect that the reason for this shortcoming is that they did not involve a mathematician! Let me explain. Ranking is kept in a related list. When a user rates a document the rank-list is added an item with the item id, the user name, and his number of stars. The fact that a user already ranked an item prevents him from ranking it again. This prevents the creator of the item from asking his mother to rank it a 5 and do it 753 times, thus stacking the ballot. Some systems will allow a user to change his rating and this will be done by updating the rank-list item. Now, when the timer kicks off, the list is spanned and for each item the rank-list items containing this id are summed up and divided by the number of votes thus yielding the new average. This is obviously very time consuming and very server intensive. In the 18th century an early actuary named James Dodson used what the great Augustus De Morgan (of De Morgan’s law) later named Commutation tables. The labor involved in computing a life insurance premium was staggering and also very error prone. Clerks with pencil and paper would multiply and add mountains of numbers to do the task. The more steps the greater the probability of error and the more expensive the process. Commutation tables created a “summary” of many steps and reduced the work 100 fold. So had Microsoft taken a lesson in the history of computation, they would have developed a much faster way for rating that may be done in real-time and is also 100 times faster and less CPU intensive. How do we do this? We use a form of commutation. We always keep the number of votes and the total of stars. One simple division gives us the average. So we write an event receiver. When a vote is added, we just add the stars to the total-stars and 1 to the number of votes. We then recomputed the average. When a vote is updated, we reduce the total by the old vote, increase it by the new vote and leave the number of votes the same. Again we do the division to get the new average. When a vote is deleted (highly unlikely and maybe even prohibited), we reduce the total by that vote and reduce the number of votes by 1… Gone are the days of spanning lists, counting items, and tallying votes and we have no need for a timer process to run it all. This is the first of a few treatises on ranking. Even though I discussed the math and the history thereof, in here I am only going to solve the presentation issue. I wanted to create the CSS and Jscript needed to display the stars, create the various effects like hovering and clicking (onmouseover, onmouseout, onclick, etc.) and I wanted to create a general solution with any number of stars. When I had it all done, I created the ranking game so that I could test it. The game is interesting in and on itself, so here it is (or go to the games page and select “rank the stars”). BTW, when you play it, look at the source code and see how it was all done.  Next, how the 5 stars are displayed in the New and Update forms. When the whole set of articles will be done, you’ll be able to create the complete solution. That’s all folks!

    Read the article

  • 500px.com Ranking Algorithm

    - by alex
    I was recently wondering how http://500px.com calculates their "Pulse" rating. The "Pulse" is a score from 1..100 based on the popularity of the photo. I think it might use some of the following criteria: Number of likes Number of "favorites" Number of comments Total views maybe the time since the photo has been uploaded maybe some other non-obvious criteria like the users follower count, user rank, camera model or similar How would I achieve some sort of algorithm like this? Any advice on how to implement an algorithm with this criteria (and maybe some code) would be appreciated too.

    Read the article

  • Simple ranking algorithm in Groovy

    - by Richard Paul
    I have a short groovy algorithm for assigning rankings to food based on their rating. This can be run in the groovy console. The code works perfectly, but I'm wondering if there is a more Groovy or functional way of writing the code. Thinking it would be nice to get rid of the previousItem and rank local variables if possible. def food = [ [name:'Chocolate Brownie',rating:5.5, rank:null], [name:'Pizza',rating:3.4, rank:null], [name:'Icecream', rating:2.1, rank:null], [name:'Fudge', rating:2.1, rank:null], [name:'Cabbage', rating:1.4, rank:null]] food.sort { -it.rating } def previousItem = food[0] def rank = 1 previousItem.rank = rank food.each { item -> if (item.rating == previousItem.rating) { item.rank = previousItem.rank } else { item.rank = rank } previousItem = item rank++ } assert food[0].rank == 1 assert food[1].rank == 2 assert food[2].rank == 3 assert food[3].rank == 3 // Note same rating = same rank assert food[4].rank == 5 // Note, 4 skipped as we have two at rank 3 Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why my site is not ranking for particular keyword

    - by user543087
    My site is only 3 days to be 6 months old. This website is unique, that is there is no competitor to this type site in India, providing comparison of payment gateways in India, besides the payment gateways companies itself. I've optimized it for key word : "payment gateway" I've changed the url's twice, latest being 3 months back, in which case Google Webmaster gave plently of 404's. I corrected the useful 404's and left meaningless ones as it is. What is the reason it's not ranking well for payment gateways? Even site with single page about "Payment gateways" seem to be ranking better than this. Is it does to: 1) Lot of outbound links to in-context companies and information 2) 404's as reported in Google Webmaster My another site is successfully getting 1500 unique visitors daily and is up in Google ranking. I don't know why it is not!

    Read the article

  • Why Alexa has two rankings for my website?

    - by MIH1406
    For the following website: Noaoomah Q&A I have two different Alexa rankings as follows: 1) The public ranking on Alexa siteinfo page of the website, that is the usual ranking page and it indicates a rank of 318,254 which they claim it is updated daily: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/noaoomah.com 2) Another public and daily ranking of the same website but it is viewable using either the freely avaliable list for Top 1,000,000 Sites in this page at the almost top right or using StatsCrop website and this ranking indicates a rank of 253,753. Which one is more accurate? Why different daily rankings?

    Read the article

  • Ranking Part III

    - by PointsToShare
    © 2011 By: Dov Trietsch. All rights reserved   Ranking Part III In a previous blogs “Ranking an Introduction” and  “Ranking Part II” , you have already praised me in “Rank the Author” and learned how to create a new element on a page and how to place it where you need it. For this installment, I just added code to keep the number of votes (you vote by clicking one of the stars) and the total vote. Using these two, we can compute the average rating. It’s a small step, but its purpose is to show that we do not need a detailed history in order to compute the average. A running total is sufficient. Please note that once you close the game, you will lose your previous total. In real life, we persist the totals in the list itself. We also keep a list of actual votes, but its purpose is to prevent double votes. If a person has already voted, his user id is already on the list and our program will check for it and bar the person from voting again. This is coded in an event receiver, which is a SharePoint server piece of code. I will show you how to do this part in a subsequent blog. Again, go to the page and look at the code. The gist of it is here. avg, votes, and stars are global variables that I defined before. function sendRate(sel){//I hate long line so I created pieces of the message in their own vars            var s1 = "Your Rating Was: ";            var s2 = ".. ";            var s3 = "\nVotes = ";            var s4 = "\nTotal Stars = ";            var s5 = "\nAverage = ";            var s;            s = parseInt(sel.id.replace("_", '')); // Get the selected star number            votes = parseInt(votes) + 1;            stars = parseInt(stars) + s;            avg = parseFloat(stars) / parseFloat(votes);            alert(s1 + sel.id + s2 +sel.title + s3 + votes + s4 + stars + s5 + avg);} Click on the link to play and examine “Ranking with Stats” That’s all folks!

    Read the article

  • Search Engine Ranking Competition

    Search engine ranking competition just got tougher. With individuals and businesses pooling a team of SEO experts to update their website, SEO software, working on intensive keyword research, as well as tapping into social media marketing, continuous marketing is necessary to improve and maintain search engine ranking competitiveness.

    Read the article

  • Proper Link Building - The Keystroke to Better Search Engine Page Ranking

    The SEO and the SEM are the tools to get a website within the top ten ranking on the search engine result pages. The ranking on the search engine result pages is the most essential thing needed for any website to get the maximum volume of web traffic to their site. In fact the point is that it is no good to launch a website if it remains out of the sight of the internet users.

    Read the article

  • Ranking with PowerPivot – a different approach

    - by Marco Russo (SQLBI)
    Alberto Ferrari wrote an interesting post about a “different approach” in creating a ranking measure with PowerPivot . If you know DAX or you read our book , you will find that a DAX expression can solve the issue. However, such a formula is more complex than necessary. The next version of PowerPivot might have more built-in DAX functions and should solve the ranking need with a simpler formula. In the meantime, it is interesting to know a different approach that relies on Excel skills instead of...(read more)

    Read the article

  • 1 to 1 Comparison and Ranking System

    - by David
    I'm looking to create a comparison and ranking system which allows users to view 2 items, click on the one that they feel is the better one and then get presented with 2 more random items and continue to do this until they decide to stop. In the background, I want the system to use these wins and loses to rank each item in an overall ranking table so I can then see what is #1 and what isn't. I haven't got a clue where to begin with the formula, but I image I need to log wins and loses. Any help/direction appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Ranking drop after using reverse proxy for blog subdirectory and robots.txt for old blog subdomain

    - by user40387
    We have a 3Dcart store and a WordPress blog hosted on a separate server. Originally, we had a CNAME set up to point the blog to http://blog.example.com/. However, in our attempt to boost link-based and traffic-based authority on the main site, we've opted to do a reverse proxy to http://www.example.com/blog/. It’s been about two months since we finished the reverse proxy migration. It appears that everything is technically working as intended, including some robots and sitemap changes; the new URLs are even generating some traffic, as indicated on Google Analytics. While Google has been indexing the new URL locations, they’re ranking very poorly, even for non-competitive, long-tail keywords. Meanwhile, the old subdomain URLs are still ranking mostly as well as they used to (even though they aren’t showing meta titles and descriptions due to being blocked by robots.txt). Our working theory is that Google has an old index of the subdomain URLs, and is considering the new URLs to be duplicate content, since it’s being told not to crawl the subdomain and therefore can’t see the rel canonicals we have in place. To resolve this, we’ve updated the subdomain’s robot.txt to no longer block crawling and indexing. Theoretically, seeing the canonical tag on the subdomain pages will resolve any perceived duplicate content issues. In the meantime, we were wondering if anyone would have any other ideas. We are very concerned that we’ll be losing valuable traffic, as we’re entering our on season at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Ranking players depending on decision making during a game

    - by tabchas
    How would I go about a ranking system for players that play a game? Basically, looking at video games, players throughout the game make critical decisions that ultimately impact the end game result. Is there a way or how would I go about a way to translate some of those factors (leveling up certain skills, purchasing certain items, etc.) into something like a curve that can be plotted on a graph? This game that I would like to implement this is League of Legends. Example: Player is Level 1 in the beginning. Gets a kill very early in the game (he gets gold because of the kill and it increases his "power curve"), and purchases attack damage (gives him more damage which also increases his "power curve". However, the player that he killed (Player 2), buys armor (counters attack damage). This slightly increases Player 2's own power curve, and reduces Player 1's power curve. There's many factors I would like to take into account. These relative factors (example: BECAUSE Player 2 built armor, and I am mainly attack damage, it lowers my OWN power curve) seem the hardest to implement. My question is this: Is there a certain way to approach this task? Are there similar theoretical concepts behind ranking systems that I should read up on? I've seen the ELO system, but it doesn't seem what I want since it simply takes into account wins and losses.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Ranking Functions

    A new article from Wayne Sheffield that examines the ranking functions in SQL Server. Learn how you can use ROW_NUMBER(), NTILE(), RANK(), and DENSE_RANK() in your applications. Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >