Currently, when someone 'likes' a link and creates a Facebook post (via the like button), it will only grab the one image that I specify in the meta tag (via the og:image property).
What is the best way to allow people to post a dynamic image with dynamic description? In my case, I have several items (with image & description) listed on a page that the user should be able to 'like' and post on their wall. Any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Change the meta tag on click: use this example and modify it to your needs.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<title>Title Of Page</title>
</head>
<body>
<input type="button" value="Click Me" onclick='$("title").html("Changed Dynamically");'/>
</body>
</html>
Related
Suppose I wanted to have Apple VoiceOver read out the contents of a webpage running in a browser, including responses to interactions, and ultimately output the result as audio.
For example, for a web page with HTML such as the following:
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<label for="name">Name</label>
<input id="name" type="text" />
<button type="submit">Submit</button>
</body>
</html>
I want to write an audio stream, say, in a Wave file, in which VoiceOver says something like:
Name, edit text. You are currently on a text field inside of web content... etc...
Would this be possible programmatically? E.g. by calling some API method?
Is it possible to run ckeditor on an IFrame so that can encapsulate a full html page? I have tried various methods but nothing seems to work.
What I am looking for is to have a ckeditor wrapper page say Editor.htm which contains an editable IFrame linked to my real html page say test.htm. Something line:
Editor.htm
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<script src="http://cdn.ckeditor.com/4.5.10/standard-all/ckeditor.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<iframe contenteditable="true" src="test.htm" id="editor1" name="editor1"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
You can set ckeditor to use "fullPage" mode, allowing you to edit everything from the opening tag to the closing tag. See the official sample here.
You will still need to get the content into the editor (e.g. the html page you want to edit) and save the result on the server, but this is something specific to your site, language, platform etc.
When I share an article on my site (www.spoilertv.com), it picks up images such as my sites logo and favicon to use in the Google Plus share box
Screenshot
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zf5ymg.png
Is there a way I can exclude an image from being "picked up" by Google+ eg somehow using the itemprop="image" snippet item?
The Google+ snippet fetcher makes a best guess when you do not specify an image using schema.org markup or Open Graph markup. You cannot explicitly exclude an image, but you can achieve the same effect by explicitly specifying a different image for your snippet :)
To specify a specific image you can add schema.org markup:
<body itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product">
<h1 itemprop="name">Shiny Trinket</h1>
<img itemprop="image" src="http://example.com/trinket.jpg" />
<p itemprop="description">Shiny trinkets are shiny.</p>
</body>
or OpenGraph markup:
<meta property="og:title" content="Example Title" />
<meta property="og:image" content="http://example.com/image.jpg" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Example Description" />
You can learn more about how Google looks for images on your page on the snippet documentation.
I have an Umbraco 5 MVC3 project where i discovered that there where white spaces here and there. When investigating i discovered that my HTML looked really bad when "viewing generated source" in firefox web developer tool. For example it removes my doctype declaration and moves my meta-tags and stuff out of the head. Simplified code:
<!doctype html>
<html class="no-js" lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width">
<title>#ViewBag.Title</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="#Url.Content("~/Content/Styles/style.css")"/>
</head>
<body id="" class="default">
<div id="wrapper">
<header id="banner" class="body">
<a class="ir logo" href="/"><h1>Christian </h1></a>
<ul class="share">
<li id="facebook"><a class="ir" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=#Request.Url.AbsoluteUri">Facebook</a></li>
<li id="twitter"><a class="ir" href="http://twitter.com/share?text=Christian">Twitter</a></li>
</ul>
#Html.Partial("nav")
</header>
<section id="content" class="body">
#RenderBody()
</section>
</div>
<script src="#Url.Content("~/Scripts/plugins.js")"></script>
<script src="#Url.Content("~/Scripts/script.js")"></script>
</body>
</html>
And the output begins like this
<html class="no-js" lang="en"><head></head><body id="" class="default">
If you want to check on the HTML generated by your server, you should use View source (CTRL + U).
Generated source is more like a reconstruction of the HTML based on the DOM and includes for example nodes created on the client side with javascript, once the page is loaded.
Alright, i solved it. Took me a while. After Marapet suggested not to use "generated source" i tried normal "view source" in a bunch of browsers and got different results in all of them. When i tried to validate my source i got some weird complaints:
Non-space characters found without seeing a doctype first. Expected <!DOCTYPE html>.
Element head is missing a required instance of child element title.
And my personal favourite
Cannot recover after last error. Any further errors will be ignored.
Looked like there was something up with the doctype. Opened up notepad and pasted in there to "wash" the code from metadata, the way i do sometimes when pasting stuff in to tinyMCE. The text got formatted weird even in notepad. The doctype declaration had a smaller font size then the rest of the html.
So i opened it in notepad++ too and there i got a bunch of questionmarks in front of the declaration. I removed them and copied it back in to Visual Studio, saved and now everything works.
I think the reason i got this problem was that i copied snippets directly from the HTML5 Boilerplate on github.
// Sherlock
When I want to share a site on facebook and want to add a custom image it doesn't work. It always gives the same image (one that is somewhere on the web page).
This is the code I've used:
<html>
<head>
<meta property="og:title" content="Title" />
<meta property="og:type" content="website" />
<meta property="og:url" content="http://www.the-website.com" />
<meta property="og:image" content="http://url-to-image.com" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="The content" />
</head>
<body>
<h1> Facebook Like </h1>
<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-website.com%2F&send=false&layout=button_count&width=450&show_faces=true&action=like&colorscheme=light&font&height=21" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:450px; height:21px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>
</body>
</html>
If you try running the page through Facebook linter - http://developers.facebook.com/tools/lint/ - it may show up some issue.
Did you read it ? http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/
There is a "code generator" which would do all coding for you. Try it, then copy&paste the code...
As for your code:
- in this case - to have a like on a page - there is no meta needed (your example's meta are not needed).
- you have probably something wrong inside src tag: my guess is to REMOVE the "font&" part, but this might be wrong...
In any case... just use the link I provided...
I had the same problem. What I did was, I just removed the entire line " <meta property="og:image" content="xxxxxxx" /> " . This will push the facebook crawler to scan for every images in the page. Now place the image you want to add somewhere in the page with width=1 and height=1. Users won't recognise this in your page. But this image will be scanned by the crawler and you can select it to show it on our page. This worked for me. I don't know whether it will work for you or not.
NB: This is just a workaround, not a good solution