1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Linking image help....

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by Carl05, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. #1
    I have a site at carlcooper.co.uk
    In the site I have a file called logo.png...
    and the line to bring it up is...

    <div align="center"><img src="images/logo.png" width="200" height="63" alt="Site Logo"/> </div>


    When I add the site link to something like facebook etc. the link comes up fine, but I'd like the logo to be displayed, but instead it shows any other random image from the page...

    Is there a way to use that logo file as the dominant image for all links?

    Thanks, and a Happy New Year...
    SEMrush
     
    Carl05, Jan 1, 2018 IP
    SEMrush
  2. partnerdig

    partnerdig Member

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    45
    #2
    Add these HTML meta tags in the <head><head>

    <meta property="og:image" content="[url to image]" />
    <meta property="og:title" content="[page name]" />
    <meta property="og:description" content="[content description]" />
     
    partnerdig, Jan 1, 2018 IP
    deathshadow and sarahk like this.
  3. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Best Answers:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #3
    TECHNICALLY you only need og:image, the latter two are (idiotic pointless) redunancies to your <title> tag and <meta name="description"> -- hence why 99%+ of the people using those other two crap the exact same content into them.

    I would suggest only including those if you want the text for the link or the description of it DIFFERENT from the contents of your <title> and <meta> -- otherwise they're just a waste of bandwidth.
     
    deathshadow, Jan 1, 2018 IP
  4. Carl05

    Carl05 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #4
    Carl05, Jan 3, 2018 IP
  5. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Best Answers:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #5
    Beware sometimes if they have an image 'cached' for the page, they'll ignore your og setting for a week or two. PARTICULARLY if you screwed around with cache-control settings on your image files.

    ANOTHER reason I consider the whole "dick around with cache-control settings for static files" thing to be hoodoo-voodoo bullshit.
     
    deathshadow, Jan 3, 2018 IP
  6. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Illustrious Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    5,483
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    Best Answers:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    400
    #6
    qwikad.com, Jan 3, 2018 IP
  7. Carl05

    Carl05 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    108
    #7
    I am trying all these... the debugger shows everything is right, but it also shows that it's going to its going to display the wrong image, before it does
    it even shows that it knows which file I want to show, just so it can mug me off that little bit more...

    [​IMG]
     
    Carl05, Jan 5, 2018 IP
  8. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Best Answers:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #8
    They often reject images with alpha transparency, and they often dislike images that are not close to square on aspect. you should aim for somewhere between 1:1 to 16:9 aspect. In fact facebook recommend 1200x630 (19:10), and most places suggest from experience 1200x1200. I have noticed that anything under 800 wide is automatically rejected. Their ignoring a 200x63 .png with alpha transparency? Not entirely surprising.

    Could also be the engine they use for parsing the page when you share is giving up on specific pages given the HTML is such a gibberish non-semantic wreck with nonsensical use of numbered headings, run-on sentences masquerading as menus, classes doing <cite>'s job, blocking scripts inside <head> before you even have the charset meta, overstuffed keywords meta (should be 7 or 8 single words or proper names that exist between <body> and </body>, don't just blindly stuff it with crap playing word jumble!), invalid/gibberish robots meta (THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDEX OR FOLLOW!!! You want it indexed or followed, don't use the META!), lack of media targets, goofy scripted animation for NOTHING of value that could interfere with usability, lists around things that are neither bullet points nor brief selections, needlessly cryptic presentational classes, <figure> around things that are not mathematical or scientific figures, scripttard only <form> that doesn't even have an actual <form> or scripting off fallbacks...

    It's a laundry list of how not to build a website, so it's not entirely a surprise something like this might go bits-up face-down on you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    deathshadow, Jan 6, 2018 IP