rwc

Fix.

https://www.zackdesign.biz/forum/bug-reports-1/list-of-ids-for-which-to-not-make-an-url/page-1

The only thing about that is, you’re assuming the highest post ID is the most recent sticky set. When in fact, if you have a post today set to a sticky, and afterward, you go back three months in your archive and set another sticky, it’s the three-month-old post that should be the most recent sticky. If I’m not mistaken, your method does not accommodate this part of sticky-post functionality.

I do agree it can have a negative impact on visitors.

I think you can agree it cuts out a percentage of plagiarism.

My point is, calling the plugin essentially useless is an insult to the creator, when, in fact, it is useless FOR YOU, but is in fact quite useful for many people seeking this functionality.

If you take it for what it is, and if you’re seeking what the plugin has to offer, it’s actually a great addition.

greenshady, in response to this code:

$sticky = get_option( 'sticky_posts' );
query_posts( array( 'post__in' => array( $sticky[0], $sticky[1] ) ) );

The other issue with this is that you’re assuming that $sticky is getting the posts in the proper order, which it doesn’t, at least not always. So even if post__in was working properly (which you say it isn’t), the code still wouldn’t guarantee the most recent two sticky posts.

Good to know I’m not the only one. Maybe someone from the WordPress team could provide a response to this?

Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V actually don’t work.

I always laugh when people reply to plugins like this scoffing at their ineffectiveness. Everybody knows the limitations of them, but if someone wants to eliminate 40 per cent of plagiarism, let him — and if you think that’s stupid, don’t download it.

Some sites charge for content, and if that content gets copied and pasted on blogs and message boards all over the Internet, it undermines what those sites are trying to accomplish. Again, cutting out 40 per cent, or 20 per cent, or whatever per cent, is better than nothing for the people in these situations.

I also think it’s humorous for people to assume that the general user actually knows how to work around this. The general Internet user actually doesn’t know what the heck “view source” means — and if they got that far, they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Just because you know how to install WordPress and know how to circumvent a plugin like this doesn’t mean everybody does. It is what it is, and it’s useful for some people. That’s why it’s a great plugin. People who want it, get it. People who don’t, don’t. And some, like you, take the time to mock it publicly.

Er, was that last response supposed to be blank?

Just to clarify, I meant by my last post that the showposts qualifier doesn’t work when it comes to stickies — at least from my experimentations. Works great with a general query, though.

Thanks! That fixed it.

Although in my testing, when I switched to the default theme, it didn’t work either. Not sure if default theme calls wp_footer or not.

Cheers!

I can’t show the site for proprietary reasons, but I can tell you that the JS does not appear to be loading at all. It’s not in the source of my HTML output. For what it’s worth, there are Google ads on the page that have JS … could that be causing problems?

Does WP even allow Javascript by default?

No, I haven’t disabled it — the No Copy seems to be working just fine on the site you listed.

I’m on 2.7.1. I make the plugin active and it doesn’t change anything — no errors, yet no disabled copy/right click/etc.

As stated, this feature works when you don’t provide the sticky filter, but **doesn’t work** when dealing with sticky posts.

Feel free to try it — if you can get it to work and care to copy in the code for me, maybe I’ve made an error, but I’ve been over it dozens of times and it’s not working for me.

greenshady,

Yes, that returns all sticky posts, but I want it to return, say, the latest sticky post, or the latest three sticky posts. Say you have 100 stickies set (yes, it’s possible, depending on how you implement them), you don’t want to be returning that huge result set every time when you don’t need to. Anybody?

As an add-on, the only way I’ve figured out how to do this without butchering the core function wp_insert_user was to add a second parameter, the unhashed password, in the do_action call … Seems pretty hacky, is there a cleaner way?

do_action(‘user_register’, $user_id, $unhashed_pass);

Same problem here; I add the hook for user_register but since I can only grab the hashed password using get_userdata, I can’t store it in my other database (which has a different hashing protocol).

So, the only way I’ve figured out to do this is by modifying the core function, which obviously blows.