Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Gio giovanni
  • Optimizing multi language website for search engines

    Dodo said:

    Simply use sub-directory or sub-url (whatever you call it) for each of the sites and add the language meta tag. On the index site, just use comma seperated all available language codes. However, you shouldn't use welcome pages, search engines don't like those either (nor do users) Instead, use some geoIP service to detect the country. Google uses multiple crawlers for each country.

    For automatic language settings, you should do this:
    Check for a language setting cookie
    If unavailable, check the HTTP header for the accepted language
    If that is unavailable, use geoIP.
    If all the above is unavailable default to English.

    Display the language selector in a corner of the website, top left or top right is best, and store the setting in a cookie.

    Thanks. For the moment I will have to do with the welcome page. The company that designed the website never told me it was a problem... The next project will be to get read of it.

  • Optimizing multi language website for search engines

    I have a question in order to optimize a website for search engines (or decision engines, whatever you want to call them). The site is translated in three languages (EN, FR and IT) and the user chooses the language from a welcome page. Now, on the welcome page there is a section titled "Search Index Page Description" with a short description of the content of the site. Right now the index page description is in one language only and in that language the site ranks 3rd in google and 1st in bing. I would like to add the other two languages to the description, but I am a little skeptical that a single page with multiple languages might be confusing and not indexed correctly. What do you suggest?

  • So what do you think of MSDN Search on Bing?

    intelman said:

    Breaking the google habbit is hard. Google has worked so well. Bing is not bad, but Google is better in many ways. Unit conversions are wonderful.

    Another great example of something Google has done very nicely.

    Bings search result technically does give me the correct answer, but Google's first result is much more relevant. Plus Google extracted that information for me in a nice clear easy to read manner.

    What Bing needs to do is to continue with their new innovative features. But they need to work on relevancy and copy every feature that Google has. It is hard to break the habbit when you know Google will be easier to use. There is a reason they are #1.

    Bing fails to find the Bob Evans in my hometown, but google does... this stuff has to be fixed.

    Both search engines fail in key areas. If I wanted driving directions from Columbus to Cleveland, I have to go to maps.live.com or maps.google.com I can't simply go to google or bing and type "Columbus, OH to Cleveland, OH". Microsoft does not need focus groups, and if they insist they should basically just ask niners and or me.

    Yes, unit conversion is way better in Google, but Wolfram Alpha is even better at it!

  • I heard it over the internets so it must be true

    kettch said:
    spivonious said:

    That's kind of why I've stopped using reason and just move directly to physical violence.

    The guy is a foot taller than me, that would not work...

  • I heard it over the internets so it must be true

    There is a certain kind of people that at times makes me laugh and at times pisses me off. A friend of mine, who has been working as a web developer for years, is the typical example.

    Today during lunch time we had more or less the following conversation:

    friend: “Have you seen the new Bing thing?”
    me: “yes”
    friend: “what do you think about it, I heard it is just like the thing they had before”
    me: “it works pretty well, I think it is a valid alternative to Google for many searches”
    friend: “but Google’s monopoly is different from the Microsoft one, they are good [litteraly].”
    me: speechless then “well I was hoping it to be more on the lines of Wolfram Alpha”
    friend: goes online, tries Wolfram Alpha, and then says “it won’t last people will go back to Google”

    I am really starting to wonder if he is on a secret list of Google’s employees… Or is he CoronaCoder?

  • Windows 7 and Vista Sync with WM6

    HRHKEE said:
    PaoloM said:

    Thanks PaoloM for your quick response... Oh I forgot to say - I do not wish to run the copy of Outlook I got with my IPAQ 4705 on my new netbook, mac book and linux machines running crossover - worse I would not think of doing that to my brand spanking new Windows 7. That would be like putting shag carpet in a new Prius. I liked Windows Mail, Contacts and Calendar. Some of my customers hate Outlook - go figure.

     I also found that the feature/function of storing contacts are in Windows 7. Please look again. I found my vcf in C:\Users\{username}\Contacts.

    Windows Live is excellent BUT IT DOES NOT sync with WM6. Oh... did I say I build computing environments, I do and I like telling customers they can have it the way they want it while I strive to use the tools to make it happen; on time, under budget and secure.  "I" - want - to sync my WM6 devices (IPAQ and HTC Tilt) with WHAT EVER Microsoft products I choose. Can you help me?

    You sound like you really meant to help so batter up take another swing at it... Thanks. JM;)


    WM6 does sync certain things with Windows Live over an internet connection. I regularly sync my contacts and emails with it, but I would appreciate a more tight integration.

  • Google Wave

    stevo_ said:
    giovanni said:

    Did you even watch the presentation? the first 10 minutes as he explained what email was and how it would be rethought today I thought.. ugh, IM clone?

    But if you bother to watch you'll see its neither specific to any of these things, its just such an abstract simple messaging system and it lets you build complex tasks on top of it, it already proved it could integrate email and instant message like experiences into one seemless system..

    I don't really see how people will fear moving from something like webmail (or even a desktop client) into something that basically looks and works identically.. compare this against gmail and the transition is basically not there.

    Yes, I did watch it (though I was not in religious silence during the whole 1h and 20 mins). It is exactly the tight integration of email and instant messaging that makes me wonder if I really want to do both at the same time (though they should both be assets in a conversation, agreed). Having a unique platform for collaboration and messaging could be heaven or could be hell.

    Instead of moving to a whole new platform which can’t connect with people who do not use it (as I understand to use  Wave you need to have a “Wave” account), I would prefer to move in that direction with the tools everyone already has (emails, IMs, document sharing, etc.) and integrate those in a unique database, on the internet or on my local machine. This way I could, for example, communicate by good old email with my supplier and then have Outlook sort out all the replies into one single message including phone calls, IMs, attachments, etc.

    That sad, I think Wave is very brilliant.

  • Google Wave

    rhm said:
    stevo_ said:

    Yes, all those things. I hope Channel9 is still around in another 5 years so we can look back and laugh at the head-in-the-sand attitude expressed by some of the people here.


    As in innovation only means stuff that comes out of MSR or universities, 99% of which is BS that nobody will ever use. Innovation could be as small as making a better spell checker. Does Outlook, or Word even, have a spell checker as intelligent as the one demonstrated in the presentation? No, it's as dumb as bricks - the exact same technology as we had in the 1980s. But the really cool thing about Wave's spell checker is that it's a 'robot' that is interacting with the document along with the human editors. The possibilities for that are endless and if you can't see any littleguru, then I think you've found the right home at Microsoft.


    But seriously, I don't care about it being a web app, or whether any of the parts of it have been done before. The point is, Google has come up with the protocols and a really good implementation, and it's designed from the ground up for integration. Even the naysayers will rapidly see it work it's tendrils into blog comments, web forums and bridge to IMs. Microsoft will either integrate it into Exchange Server and Sharepoint or risk being left behind with the other 1990s technologies.

    What I personally wonder about is what will Wave be in 5 years (I am pretty confident Channel 9 will still be around). Is Wave supposed to integrate with current email and chat systems, or will it be a new type of communication? What I am worrying about is that, if it is too innovative, people might not switch (people and businesses don't like change because they have to learn again and again from scratch).

    Moreover, all this emphasis on instant communication does not make me feel very well: IM is a different medium than email and has different pros and cons. IM is not necessarily a synonym of productivity. I feel Wave favors too much short instant communications, while long and well thought out emails are still very important.

    As others said, there are lots of old ideas that are simply put together seamlessly in Wave. It seems to me that this is just Google's vision of UC and that it could be approached in less radical ways (read more compatible with current technologies).

  • Google Wave

    blowdart said:
    giovanni said:

    So if I store my data in a SQL server hosted by a single ISP, that's in the cloud? Errr, no.

    Ok. I thinkI should correct my statement then: unified communication for everyone, no server required.

  • Fun with Bing DNS

    One good thing is that typing bing.com, bing.it, bing.fr, etc now birngs you directly to the right localized version. And it seems to remember it now.