Thanx from a lazy fuck

[T Pat]

Chop, Useless and docholly you guys (and gal) motivated me to finale get off my ass and set up some blogs that I bought the domains for 6 or 8 months ago off of ebay.
I tried to use another feed aggregater and that bogged me down for a few hours, then I used the feed Useless recomended http://projects.radgeek.com/feedwordpress
So end result 4 blogs took me less than 4 hours (not counting wasted time fucking with that other feed aggregater) and you guys do the updateing for me:D
It just can't get easier than that|bananna| Thanx |thumb
If you want to see your feeds on someone elses blogs, here ya go
http://www.xxxfine.com
http://www.xxxsold.com
http://www.xxxsafe.com
http://www.xxxused.com

[Chop Smith]

Gosh TPat, I hope it is profitable for all of us. Or are you building these out of love to surfers? :D

[Useless]

Excellent Pat. |headbang| Until today, I've only seen the feeds on the couple of sites that we tested them on. I can't even express how good it feels to see them put to good use.

[T Pat]

I can't even express how good it feels
Now that's got to be a first:D
It took me hours to write a post for hot-latina-links today and less than a minute to update my 4 new blogs I'm really liking this|thumb

[Jel]

Pat, reading your initial post got me off my lazy ass and with UW's help I managed to get my blog utilising Chop's Cash (Check Chop & UW's sig people!) feeds and not only is it a cinch for a technical dumbass like me, the posts fit in with my layout perfectly, no running in and out into the sidebars or any of that shit.

Awesome job guys, awesome!

[walrus]

Pat, reading your initial post got me off my lazy ass and with UW's help I managed to get my blog utilising Chop's Cash (Check Chop & UW's sig people!) feeds and not only is it a cinch for a technical dumbass like me, the posts fit in with my layout perfectly, no running in and out into the sidebars or any of that shit.

Awesome job guys, awesome!Too keep the kudo's flowing, since Jel's blog is a part of XXX Blog Feeds, the feed even makes it into his sites RSS feed and into my blog, affiliate code in tact.

[Boogie]

this thread got me to get up off my ass and set up some old blogs I dont update any more to autoupdate chops feeds and more ;)

love this thread. lets make out

[docholly]

this thread got me to get up off my ass and set up some old blogs I dont update any more to autoupdate chops feeds and more ;)

love this thread. lets make out

and i'm very happy to see at least someone is using the Uniform and Stocking blogs..
:D

*PSSSST*.. yes that is a BIG assed hint!! :D

[oast]

I'm using 5 feeds (including Uniforms AND Stockings) from Chops Cash on my blog at adultweblogger.com (http://adultweblogger.com/) (thanks guys) and will be utilising a couple (or more) at my new site mysexposts.com (http://mysexposts.com/)

[Preacher]

Too keep the kudo's flowing, since Jel's blog is a part of XXX Blog Feeds, the feed even makes it into his sites RSS feed and into my blog, affiliate code in tact.

That's cool, but isn't this also problematic. For example, Jel and I are both listed on XXX blog feeds and pornpig (I believe) - two aggregators for people not in the know. So if Jel and I both put Useless' feed into our blogs, aren't you going to see at least one duplicate entry of this content on your aggregators?

And truth be told, we're a small community of bloggers on this board and I'm sure most of us promote Useless because he is so gad-damn sexy for someone who is only 4'3" (judging purely by the sound of his voice or course). Point being I think several of us would add his feed to our main blogs if not for this aggregator duplication issue.

Or am I just over-thinking things? |loony|

[Useless]

I think you have a valid point there, Preacher, even if you did make that horrible comment about my voice which will probably land me 3 more years of therapy. ;)

Obviously, I aggregate all 8 of our feeds on my lovely porn blogs (http://www.whoringwives.com/tgp/porn-blogs/) page. And so do a couple of the blogs of board members which I pull. The other day I noticed that two of the hosted blog posts of the same title were listed one right after the other; one with my affiliate code, the other with someone else's. I could easily have gone to my admin and yanked the repeated post, but since it was promoting the program which is nearest and dearest to my heart, I left it in. |shocking| I would expect any 'normal' blog owner would and should, for the sake of having a quality blog, remove repeat posts like that.

[Preacher]

I think you have a valid point there, Preacher, even if you did make that horrible comment about my voice which will probably land me 3 more years of therapy. ;)
Your welcome. Therapy rocks, it's where they pass out the best drugs! |thumb

blah, blah, blah...I would expect any 'normal' blog owner would and should, for the sake of having a quality blog, remove repeat posts like that.
That goes against my whole unfounded belief that aggregators are supposed to be hands free.

I mean Hell, if you aggregator guys are actually reading my blog entries then you know how just how messed up I really am. |loony|

[Preacher]

Just to sound completely insane and reply to myself...I just went to pornpig and I love Alex so this isn't anything against him, but of the last 5 posts on pornpig right now there is a post and right below it a duplicate post. Then an original post, followed by another set of duplicates.

[walrus]

Actually, you do point out an interesting problem for which I have no good solution...I would be against deleting posts of one webmaster in favor of another...and on the other hand, it would do the site no good to have the same post multiple times.

My only solution would be to work with the individual webmasters to try to come to some type of solutions....if none could be found, then I guess I'd have to be an asshole and decide which feed was more productive for the site and go with that.

[Simon]

I agree that the dupe posts problem really needs a(n almost) hands-off solution. This might be a good point for discussion on tonight's radio show since Boogie is the guest and it's supposed to be blog-focused.

I'd like to incorporate all 8 of dead-sexy's feeds in my blog projects too, and I can see what a nightmare this could grow into as more quality RSS feeds are offered by sponsors (with working brains).

[docholly]

I haven't run this by our guru of blogs yet..so this may or may not be possible.. but for those who are more familiar with wordpress .. can you not go in to your admin once our blog posts are fed into your blog and edit the time and date? so you know that ASAIG current blog posted on 6/28 at 615am. you could effectively go in and change that date to say 6/29 or 6/30.. thus it would post later on the aggregators and not be duped by them one after another? Just an idea.

Also as a side note: the original intent of this was to provide QUALITY key word rich posts for bloggers and to give you options as to filling in your sidebar links with "friends" blogs. This is especially good to retain bookmarkers to your blog because they know, if you use all 8 dead-sexy blogs, that at least 1 per day your blog will be updated. |boobies|

Tennis anyone??? :D

[ponygirl]

Also as a side note: the original intent of this was to provide QUALITY key word rich posts for bloggers and to give you options as to filling in your sidebar links with "friends" blogs. This is especially good to retain bookmarkers to your blog because they know, if you use all 8 dead-sexy blogs, that at least 1 per day your blog will be updated.

see that's what I thought they would be for - the sidebar links. I still haven't got the hang of the RSS stuff yet. That's what you get when you just jump in & figure it out as you go along |loony|

I'm sure this will get addressed on the show tonite so hopefully I'll learn something :)

[Useless]

... for those who are more familiar with wordpress .. can you not go in to your admin once our blog posts are fed into your blog and edit the time and date?Once you have aggregated a feed into your blog, the content of its posts are fully under your control and appear in your WP admin just like any post you have written yourself. You could edit the body text, the title, the date, whatever.

But the issue is, it really sucks that anyone would have to do anything manually. In my opinion, the very nicest thing about using feeds is that you get all of that content by simply clicking 'update feeds'. Now, if you are running a big aggregator and you're pulling down a ton of feeds, dupe posts wouldn't be all that noticeable and not really something to worry about. On a smaller personal blog, where the content is mostly your own posts and a couple of aggregated feeds, then it will be far more noticeable.

[ponygirl]

Once you have aggregated a feed into your blog, the content of its posts are fully under your control and appear in your WP admin just like any post you have written yourself. You could edit the body text, the title, the date, whatever.

ok I need some help here :) when you get the feed added in, does it publish a post everytime the blog is updated? I guess what I'm asking is if you have initial control over when a post goes live or if they're automatically added to the page. Does that make sense? |loony|

[Useless]

ok I need some help here :) when you get the feed added in, does it publish a post everytime the blog is updated? I guess what I'm asking is if you have initial control over when a post goes live or if they're automatically added to the page. Does that make sense? |loony|It depends on the Aggregator you use. I use FeedWordPress, in which you can choose to allow the feed posts to be automatically published to your page or held as drafts. So, you could pick and choose which posts make it to your blog. You could edit them before they are published to your blog as well.

[ponygirl]

It depends on the Aggregator you use. I use FeedWordPress, in which you can choose to allow the feed posts to be automatically published to your page or held as drafts. So, you could pick and choose which posts make it to your blog. You could edit them before they are published to your blog as well.
ok, now I'm getting a little excited about this :D

I'm looking at FeedWordPress, it all sounds rather complicated but hell, I love a challenge. There goes my day lol.

so what is the etiquette on editing posts? It doesn't sound right that you can change them if you're pulling someone elses post. But if it's a program blog, I guess that makes it your own post, really - right?

[Useless]

so what is the etiquette on editing posts? It doesn't sound right that you can change them if you're pulling someone elses post. But if it's a program blog, I guess that makes it your own post, really - right?Yeah, I wouldn't see any harm in editing a sponsor's post in any manner, as long as it still promotes the contributing sponsor when all is said and done. I wouldn't edit a fellow webmaster's posts unless you see a seriously mispelled word that isn't going to let you sleep at night. ;)

[docholly]

Yeah, I wouldn't see any harm in editing a sponsor's post in any manner, as long as it still promotes the contributing sponsor when all is said and done. I wouldn't edit a fellow webmaster's posts unless you see a seriously mispelled word that isn't going to let you sleep at night. ;)

I think i need spell check.. lmao

[Toby]

Is there a spell checker plugin for WP? That would be very useful.

[Useless]

Is there a spell checker plugin for WP? That would be very useful.I don't see the option in a defaut install if you use the "Visual Rich Editor". However, if you go to Options > Writing and unclick "Users should use the visual rich editor by default", you'll now see a button (when writing or managing posts) which reads "lookup" in your many, many editing options. Highlight some text and you'll see that it queries Answers.com for you. If you hightlight a single word, it'll take you right to the Answers.com definition of that word.

[Toby]

If you hightlight a single word, it'll take you right to the Answers.com definition of that word.That'll work, thx

[RawAlex]

If you allow you feeds to be aggregated, then you should not be putting other aggregate material in them. Quite simply, if I continue to see duplicate posts on pornpig, I will elminate one or other of the feeds and assume that there is not enough original material on the blog.

If you want to aggregate stuff, start your own aggregation site and list your sites on it rather than screwing up your existing site.

[RawAlex]

I just want to add this: Pornpig's intention is to aggregate UNIQUE blogs into a format that drives you traffic, views, and exposure for your unique work. When your blog becomes mostly someone else's work, I can no longer aggregate the content, because the risk of duplication (and see here) is a bit overwhelming, even in small numbers.

Jel, for the moment Ihave disabled your feed into the blog and removed the obvious duplicate posts from the front page of the site. If your blog returns to a unique situation, I don't have a problem re-adding it, but I cannot aggregate blogs that are pre-aggregated other source material in this manner.

Anyone else interested or want to discuss it, email alex@monolithnet.com

[walrus]

I haven't actually had a chance to try this....hopefully I will soon.

It should be possible to add the feeds into pages on your blog instead of posts. I know there is a plug-in that will let you run PHP in a page and I'm thinking of trying an aggregator like Carp to actually add the feeds onto the page. You'll only have the most recent posts (however many are output by the sponsor) and not the history but I still think it could be cool plus it would allow you to use the feeds and maintain your blogs individuality.

I think I saw something....somewhere that would allow you to treat page links differently than the default WP install does. If anyone has any ideas, I'd like to take a look at them...or I guess I'll investigate over the weekend.

[Useless]

I haven't actually had a chance to try this....hopefully I will soon.

It should be possible to add the feeds into pages on your blog instead of posts. I know there is a plug-in that will let you run PHP in a page and I'm thinking of trying an aggregator like Carp to actually add the feeds onto the page. You'll only have the most recent posts (however many are output by the sponsor) and not the history but I still think it could be cool plus it would allow you to use the feeds and maintain your blogs individuality.Exec-PHP (http://www.soeren-weber.net/post/2005/08/18/50/) allows you execute PHP in WP's posts and pages.

Try to ignore the sloppiness of the next site link I give you - I use it for testing stuff out. ;) Anyway, this is a WP page with Exec-PHP activated and using that new tool we released on Monday. http://www.maladapted.com/?page_id=288 So yes, you can run feeds on a WP page. You should be able to install a third-party aggregator and pull any feeds you wish. There may be a plugin aggregator for use on pages, but I haven't stumbled on one yet.

And, as you assert, this would allow bloggers to employ feeds on their blogs they wish to submit to aggregators like "Porn Pig" without the worry of having your sponsor aggregated content killing the uniqueness or decreasing the value of your blog's feed. Of course, this would also disclude you the opportunity of getting your affiliate coded posts into Technorati and the like.

[walrus]

Of course, this would also disclude you the opportunity of getting your affiliate coded posts into Technorati and the like.Since your not tagging your posts, this would be a fairly minor loss as only the categories would get translated anyway.

[Useless]

That hurts. :D

[Useless]

Since your not tagging your posts, this would be a fairly minor loss as only the categories would get translated anyway.Walrus, my journey to learn more about his tagging voodoo has lead me back to one of your threads (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=31622). Am I to understand that tagging is nothing more than adding rel="tag" within my anchor tags? So <a href="somelink.com" rel="tag">my linked text</a> would 'tag' the words I've chose to link? If that's so, I'll go hardcode that into our system right now.

Please help me make sense of this stuff.
|pcsucks|

[walrus]

Exactly....

[Useless]

Exactly....Great! Thanks Walrus. You've been a very big help to me all long the way.

Looks like I have to go edit 8 copies of quicktags.js |thumb

[Chop Smith]

Damn, I have got to quit reading this thread or I will post some mushy crap about how much this board and its members have meant to me and the 'staff's" little program.

[Jel]

I just want to add this: Pornpig's intention is to aggregate UNIQUE blogs into a format that drives you traffic, views, and exposure for your unique work. When your blog becomes mostly someone else's work, I can no longer aggregate the content, because the risk of duplication (and see here) is a bit overwhelming, even in small numbers.

Jel, for the moment Ihave disabled your feed into the blog and removed the obvious duplicate posts from the front page of the site. If your blog returns to a unique situation, I don't have a problem re-adding it, but I cannot aggregate blogs that are pre-aggregated other source material in this manner.

Anyone else interested or want to discuss it, email alex@monolithnet.com

Hi Alex,

I see totally where you're coming from and that's no problem at all. Looking at the other posts and trying to work out how I can get around it. Just recently woke here so a little foggy in the brain right now lol.

[Simon]

Could someone hit me up later on icq about what needs to be changed in the quicktags.js to make the tagging work automatically? (Or maybe it's worth posting here for others too.)

Working on new mantra:
"If it's not worth automating, it's not worth doing again."

[Useless]

Could someone hit me up later on icq about what needs to be changed in the quicktags.js to make the tagging work automatically? (Or maybe it's worth posting here for others too.)For sure. I'll tell you, but don't tell the rest of these clowns. Okay? ;) Quicktags.js is used for writing/editing posts when you are NOT using that crappy Visual Rich Editor, but I'm unsure if it's used if you are using the VRE.

Open -
wp-includes/js/quicktags.js

Look for (pretty much at the end of the file)-
function edInsertLink(myField, i, defaultValue) {
if (!defaultValue) {
defaultValue = 'http://';
}
if (!edCheckOpenTags(i)) {
var URL = prompt('Enter the URL' ,defaultValue);
if (URL) {
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '">';
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}
else {
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}

Change -
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '">';
to-
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '" rel="tag">';

Coincidentally, this is also where you could add a mouseover into your anchors, if you wished, because that is the code that inserts the linking structure when you hit the "link" button.

[oast]

function edInsertLink(myField, i, defaultValue) {
if (!defaultValue) {
defaultValue = 'http://';
}
if (!edCheckOpenTags(i)) {
var URL = prompt('Enter the URL' ,defaultValue);
if (URL) {
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '">';
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}
else {
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}

Change -
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '">';
to-
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '" rel="tag">';
If, like me, you use different 'rels' for different types of link, you could prompt for the rel to use:
function edInsertLink(myField, i, defaultValue) {
if (!defaultValue) {
defaultValue = 'http://';
}
if (!edCheckOpenTags(i)) {
var URL = prompt('Enter the URL' ,defaultValue);
var REL = prompt('Enter the rel' ,'external');
if (URL) {
edButtons[i].tagStart = '<a href="' + URL + '" rel="' + REL + '">';
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}
else {
edInsertTag(myField, i);
}
}Substitute 'external' for the rel you use most often.

[dr_montelbaun]

Just thought I'd jump in with $.02 on the duplicate content issue. Search Engines are sure to recognize duplicate content across multiple sites and will penalize for it. So to deal with that you'll need to either a) not care about search engines or b) make your own mods to the aggregated content as it comes in.

Obviously option 2 foils the hands-off approach, which isn't very attractive. But it is still a lot easier than coming up with all that new content out of whole cloth.

[oast]

Duplicate content is bound to happen... there are 8+ billion webpages out there! Same as all the major news sites use 3 or 4 main sources for their content.
As long as a few 'original' posts are also included on the pages, I don't see a problem... maybe I'm wrong.

[docholly]

and since all blogs have different keywords and unique names it not going to really be that much of an issue we don't think..

if some one was searching for "x-rated nudes" they might find an entry on Simon's blog but they could also find the same entry when searching for "foxy nudes" might end up at Sue's.

there are so many variables and like oast said, lots of news feeds go everywhere every day, and as long as there is some other relevant text with in the blog it won't be the same.

But then again the way google has acted stranger things have happened. |huh

[walrus]

I sure the hell ain't no SE guru but this topic has been popping up a bit lately so I thought I might want to look into it a bit. Especially since I use RSS feeds in a couple of places, including sponsor feeds and I also have my feeds published a number of places. So, a SE penalty would really hurt.

My conclusion is that there definately is a duplicate content penalty. That having been said, I also believe that the content duplication has to be on a fairly large scale in order to take affect and I've decided that it probably isn't the type of penalty that is going to kill you in the long run anyway.

According to James D Brausch, the self proclaimed founder of the term "Duplicate Content Penalty", if you were to submit an article to 300 sites, it would take Google about 6 weeks to see it and then react to it. But I'm not so sure I would consider what happens next a penalty. According to Mr. Brausch, you would then see the following "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 16 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

If it's my content, I don't see a penalty here as long as all my links and affiliate codes are left in tact and if they are not well that's a whole different story since it moves it from a duplicate content penalty to content theft. So even if I don't end up in one of the top 16 slots before Google cuts off the listing, I still can be pretty content that my post is still getting exposure and that I have sites higher in the SERP's than me linking to my content, thus improving my overall positioning within Google.

Now if I'm using someone else's content and don't figure into the top 16, then I guess a small penalty has been imposed but looking at the time frame, 6 weeks, I doubt that will hurt much and from everything I can tell, it has no adverse affects on anything else having to do with my site. At least, I've yet to find any concrete proof that it does.

In fact, the whole myth aspect of this is probably rooted in the fact that it does take such a high number of iterances of the content being copied that it is un-noticable to the honest webmaster who used a few feeds here and there. The only place where you might need to be careful is with using sponsor feeds or creating a blog from nothing other than sponsor feeds. These could easily start to fall within that category and if that is the only content on your blog, work to strangle it to just the few visitors you can get from link trades and directory submittals.

[Useless]

My understanding of the situaton is that in order to be penalized for duplicate content, page B would have to have many similarities to page A. Simply aggregating other peoples' posts and allowing them to mix with your own, on your unique site, shouldn't even bring you close to a penatly. With the popularity of RSS feeds being used on, and pulled from major mainstream sites, I get the sense that very few people who are "in the know" are worried about being penalized. Articles and blog posts have been republished across this mighty web for a considerable period now. If Google viewed the re-use of some content as duplicate, we would have known by now.

Also, blogs are not static - or at least they shouldn't be. Blog content is always updating and changing. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that the average blog would need to worry about the dupe penatly.

[dr_montelbaun]

Well, these things are definitely true if one takes the page as a whole. But the SEs know how to tease out the content of individual posts in a blog and treat them each as a single unit. They also know how to tell the difference between syndicated content (i.e. AP/Reuters stories on CNN, Yahoo, MSN, etc) and duplicate content that is published as if it is original content.

That being said -- I don't think there'd be a serious penalty for the duplication, like losing PR or something, so much as Google wouldn't index your syndicated post in the same way that it would index an original post. I think Walrus found some good info on how this would play out. If you do something to make the syndicated post your own (like CNN, Yahoo, MSN etc often do with AP/Reuters stories) then you may be able to get the SEs to treat your version as original content.

[oast]

If you do something to make the syndicated post your own (like CNN, Yahoo, MSN etc often do with AP/Reuters stories) then you may be able to get the SEs to treat your version as original content.That is something I'm looking into with two of my new "blogs".

With another WP plugin, the "extra" content in some RSS feeds can be used. For example, on Adult Weblogger (http://adultweblogger.com/) I am using an RSS from Rabbit's Reviews. In the RSS are links to a graphic of the front page of each reviewed site, and sometimes links to galleries (if Rabbit has them). Although they are in the RSS, these 'extras' don't show on my syndicated content... only on my site, as I have coded them directly into the index.php of the theme, not with the post as it is stored in the database.
Although the wording remains the same, there is more to the article than on other sites, so is this seen as 'different'? |huh

Just thought... Google themselves can be 'guilty' of using duplicate content. Do they not use the data from DMOZ.org for their directory?

Yes they have the option to present the listings in a different order (by pagerank), but it is essentially the same data. Plus the miriad of other 'directories' that are simply a copy of DMOZ, but with their own .css. Some of them are quite high on Google's ranking.

[walrus]

I haven't actually had a chance to try this....hopefully I will soon.Well, I finally got my lazy ass in gear and did this and honestly I think it turned out pretty cool. Not only am I adding the feed to a page....I've added the chicklets so that people can subscribe directly to the feeds themselves. If interested, you can check it out here (http://www.xxxblogindex.com/xxxblogmaniac/as-sexy-as-it-gets/)