Bulletproof and Mint (or other tracking tools)

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:36 pm

The Bulletproof template offers the inclusion of a tracking script in the admin backend. Unfortunately, the entered script is executed in the footer of the rendered pages and not in the header. If i want to use a script, that has to be run in the header, i have to use a sepereate plugin, which in my opinion is overkill for that task.

It would be nice if Bulletproof offered an option to select where the scripts are run, header or footer. Many scripts and additional info like eg. geo tags and microid (correct me, if i'm wrong on them) need to be run in the header section and not the footer...

Post by **Don Chambers** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:48 pm

You just want to insert non-displaying code into the <head> section, or the banner/header???

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:51 pm

I want to put the code in the <head> section...

Post by **Don Chambers** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:04 pm

As you already seem to know, there is a head nugget plugin that provides that functionality. However, I see value to what you are proposing.

YL, d_cee, or Garvin - you guys see any problem with adding this? I am making other minor revisions to bp today anyway, so adding this would not be difficult at all. It could either exist as an additional option, providing ONLY a <head> addition, or I could give the existing counter code block an option to position in 1) the page footer, 2) <head> or 3) not at all.

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:08 pm

Don, great that you see value in my idea. Speaking of value: What sense does it make to offer to include script code and NOT running it? That is what you name option 3.) as far as i got it.

Post by **Don Chambers** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:11 pm

If for no other reason, you could turn it "off" without deleting all the code, then switch it back "on", should the need arise.

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:14 pm

Ok, got it.

As i don't know any script that needs to be run in the footer of a page, i'm fine with <head> only or the option of choice.

Post by **yellowled** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:08 am

Don Chambers wrote:As you already seem to know, there is a head nugget plugin that provides that functionality. However, I see value to what you are proposing.

Erm, that's exactly the reason why I don't see value to this proposition. The functionality is already there. There also might be side effects if someone uses both the head nugget and this new option, but of course IANAC ("I am not a coder."

).

YL

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:49 am

yellowled, i see what you mean. I don't know if this feature is exclusive to Bulletproof; i didn't try any other themes. So, if you use Bulletproof, that already offers functionality to run scripts, what's the point in using a plugin only to do that in another location (header vs. footer)? Each single plugin increases the size and complexity of S9y, so if it can be done easily in the theme itself - and that's the case with Bulletproof - i prefer not to use plugin for a simple task like that.

yellowled wrote:There also might be side effects if someone uses both the head nugget and this new option, but of course IANAC ("I am not a coder." ).

Exactly, so give Bulletproof users the option where to run the scripts and don't force them to install the plugin, if they like to use scripts in the header... I'm also no coder, just thinking practical (at least i think so

)

Post by **Don Chambers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:59 am

I would like to hear feedback from Garvin on this issue before reaching any conclusions.

I doubt there would be conflicts with the plugin if, and only if, the user made sure they did not use both, or at least not for the same code/script. There is no way for bulletproof to suppress the output of the plugin, so bulletproof cannot trap the redundancy (at least, nothing comes immediately to mind).

The plugin does have one (perhaps more) definite advantage - it is template independent.

If a user already has the plugin installed, they have no need for the same functionality in bp. If they start with bp, and do not have the plugin installed, they will need to install it if they switch from bp to a different template.

I am not sure which version would save "grandma's performance pennies", but perhaps Garvin will chime in soon and render an opinion on all of this.

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:26 am

[quote="Don Chambers"]The plugin does have one (perhaps more) definite advantage - it is template independent.

If a user already has the plugin installed, they have no need for the same functionality in bp. If they start with bp, and do not have the plugin installed, they will need to install it if they switch from bp to a different template./quote]

Point taken. So, if users of Bulletproof and users of other templates need to install the plugin to run code in the <head> section and only Bulletproof users get the opportunity to run code in the footer, would't it make more sense to move the functionality from Bulletproof to a seperate plugin and make it available to users of other themes as well?

Post by **Don Chambers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:39 am

I think the original concept for the footer counter code was to provide a dedicated space for something that might return a visual result (# page hits, icon, etc)..... which is quite different from a script running in <head>.

Providing the same functionality in a plugin, which would apply to all templates would be impossible. The best it could hope to do is interject something just prior to </body>. Not every template is going to have a #footer <div>, and searching for it, then inserting code, could really wreak havoc on a template IMHO.

Your request has not been fully rejected just yet. I am a lowly, part-time, amateur, designer (did I degrade myself enough there?!!! LOL)..... I was hoping for some input from s9y's lead developer (Garvin) prior to taking any action on the matter.

Regardless of whether this concept is adopted or not, I sincerely appreciate the suggestion, as suggestions like this bring a fresh perspective to BP, and s9y as a whole. We have already incorporated suggestions made by others, and likewise, needed to decline others. No matter what happens with regard to this issue, please continue to look at BP and s9y with a critical eye and continue to make suggestions when you believe something is worth re-evalulation.

derlinzer · Post by **derlinzer** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:02 am

Ah, now i get it. It is primarily intended for visual gadgets, like a graphic counter in the first place. Alright, consider my request as canned.

And don't be afraid, i wouldn't like to use S9y because of that anymore. I really like the rather strong seperation of themes and plugins (not like the mix from some other popular publishing platform) and this is just consequent: functionality in a plugin, visuals in a theme.

I use S9y only a couple of days now and wrote an entry (in German) with some first impressions of it.

Post by **yellowled** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:24 am

derlinzer wrote:I really like the rather strong seperation of themes and plugins (not like the mix from some other popular publishing platform)

We usually refer to it as "the other blog engine", but this is also nice

derlinzer wrote:I use S9y only a couple of days now and wrote an entry (in German) with some first impressions of it.

Glad you like it

I am not 100% sure about it, but I think creating categories on the fly is actually possible using the freetag plugin. But I might be confused about that

I also don't think FeedBurner integration is complicated or drag'n'drop for sidebar plugins is fiddly, but that's always a matter of personal taste

YL

Post by **Don Chambers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:29 am

I cannot read German, and bablefish never quite provides a great translation, but it seems you like s9y and bp despite the current limitations. As mentioned earlier, suggestions, such as you have been making, help reduce those "limitations".

Back to the counter code.....

You are correct - it was originally intended to be more of a visual gadget than just a script location. While it can provide the kind of script you need, I think the best possible solution for you is the head nugget plugin.

Of course, if Garvin comes back and declares your suggestion extremely valuable to bp, it will be added!!!