mb
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm in reply to: Get rid of the paralax header for some pages in Supreme #390711
Stiofan, the custom field worked perfect. It is easy to start with.
Giri, I will definately try your code when the need of more customizations is really there.
Thank you for the help!!!
Let’s mark the ticket as solved.
August 4, 2017 at 9:35 pm in reply to: Get rid of the paralax header for some pages in Supreme #389818Thanks, you are a treasure!
Looking forward and have a nice weekend
August 4, 2017 at 11:07 am in reply to: Get rid of the paralax header for some pages in Supreme #389737Hi, thanks for the CSS solution proposal but this is not what I meant.
If I hide some header areas with CSS, but I need to show h1 for SEO or UX, I will have then double H1 for those pages where the header is hidden, but the h1 is printed in the code already in the paralax header.
Double h1 are problem for SEO.
I need to completely disable the header code for some pages. I would just need your guidance in which files and where in the code exactly the headers are controlled for Supreme. I will add then my own conditions to allow the paralax header to appear or not on specific pages/posts.
Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks in advance
This reply has been marked as private.This reply has been marked as private.Hi Stiofan,
any updates since the last month?
Cheers
Thanks, paolo!
I will submit this as a feature request.
By the way I submitted another feature request but I don’t see it online.
Should it be first approved by the support?
Cheers.
Great products take time to craft!
Looking forward for the beta and thank you for the huge update in the right direction.
Proper handling of these features really assures that we can monetize easily in countries like Germany – you cannot imagine how strict the laws are here.
July 25, 2016 at 11:22 am in reply to: Exclude scpeific custom post type from search dropdown #233202Great!
Many thanks!Thanks for the clarification.
Hi paolo, thanks for the feedback.
I also found the Nominatum policies in openstreetmap.
Cheers.
July 22, 2016 at 10:09 am in reply to: Different logic search via location suggestion and location as word #231701Hi paolo,
pulling locations from the DB is actually a perfect way by my opinion. I just wanted to mention it because it was spoken smth else above in the post.
I am waiting now the updates with the more realistic ‘near by’ and ‘radius’ search.
The best solution is to perform a radius search when there is a location chosen from the suggestions, instead of just limiting it to the city.
Cheers.
July 21, 2016 at 1:25 pm in reply to: Different logic search via location suggestion and location as word #231408Hi,
I have a new input.
Actually at the moment the suggestions are pulled off from the GD database entries. I figured out this because I had couple of locations where I had to merge 2 cities (with very slight differences in long and lat). And the suggestion tool was giving me 2 cities with the same name till I merged them.
After I merged them it was giving me only 1 suggestion.
So, it is actually pulling the suggestions from the entries already in the GD database.
Any comments on this?
I also commented on another post with a ‘true nearby search’ request. I think at the bottom line, we are referring to simply making this functionality better for the end user and looking for similar results to achieve.
The best would be always radius search to be applied (no matter a suggestion is used or the city as a word is entered)) and never just ONLY showing the entries in the suggested city. Or at least the admin can choose to switch on and off the radius search.
Waiting for testing…
I appreciate this effort and changes from the team too!
+1 for true radius search.
-
AuthorPosts