Review rejected SEO audit suggestions

Offen
  • Stimmt etwas nicht?
#870 1 Kommentar 0 Reaktionen 0 zugewiesene Personen Auf GitHub ansehen

Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag

Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.

Bewertung

Schwierigkeit
5/5
Geschätzter Aufwand
Über eine Woche
Anfängerfreundlichkeit
25/100
Issue-Typ
Dokumentation
Klarheit
Muss geklärt werden
Aktivitätsstatus
Veraltet
Tech-Stack
github, html
Bereich
content, web-dev

Rechercherichtung

Überprüfe die Audit-Triage in diesem Issue zusammen mit den separat eröffneten Issues #859–#869. Beginne damit zu prüfen, welche Befunde bestätigt oder korrigiert wurden und ob die abgelehnten Vorschläge eine neue Entscheidung erfordern; abgeschlossen bedeutet, dass die Triage bestätigt oder ein spezifisches Folge-Issue eröffnet wurde.

Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.

Beschreibung

documentation needs-discussion

Review of rejected or materially revised audit suggestions

@Keegan-Vaz — please double-check this triage, especially the hosting and content-priority calls.

The attached SEO audit was reviewed against the current main branch and live HTML on 25 August 2026. Confirmed or corrected findings were opened separately:

  • #861 — lazy-load the search index.
  • #865 — conditionally load Mermaid/Highlight.js.
  • #860 — repair heading hierarchy.
  • #866 — replace the /glossary/ stub.
  • #864 — improve meta-description generation.
  • #868 — make resource browsing incremental and crawlable.
  • #862 — enrich/link author profiles.
  • #863 — add LearningResource structured data.
  • #867 — fix glossary breadcrumbs.
  • #859 — make sitemap lastmod accurate.
  • #869 — fix image alt text and dimensions.

Suggestions not adopted as written

  1. “1,490 curated resources are 136 pagination clicks deep.” This did not reproduce against the current deployment. /resources/ is the canonical landing page, /resources/page/2/ returns 404, and the current page is a roughly 3.8 MB headless/client-filtered document. The underlying performance and crawlability concern is real, so #868 addresses that corrected problem rather than implementing the audit’s stale URL/depth model.

  2. “Truncate every meta description at ~155–160 characters.” Google documents no fixed meta-description limit and truncates snippets according to device width. #864 retains the useful parts—accurate, unique, page-specific descriptions and word-boundary handling—without treating 155–160 characters as an SEO rule.

  3. “Add security headers by moving off GitHub Pages.” The headers are absent, but GitHub Pages is the current hosting constraint and the audit provides no evidence that a migration is justified by the SEO findings alone. This can be revisited if FORRT moves behind Cloudflare/Netlify or needs a broader security-hardening project; it is not opened as an issue now.

  4. “Fix glossary thin content by increasing word counts.” No padding is recommended. Google explicitly warns against writing to a target word count, and the glossary already provides definitions, references, related terms, translations, and reviewer attribution. The higher-value missing connection—linking contributors to verified author entities—is covered by #862.

  5. Generic og:image on glossary pages. A shared, valid social preview image is not inherently a defect, and the audit did not demonstrate a broken preview or material user impact. It is lower priority than the confirmed template issues.

  6. Duplicate preconnects. The duplication is a small, localized performance cleanup (the chatbot partial repeats the Google Fonts preconnects), but it is not material enough to warrant a separate issue alongside the larger payload fixes. It can be removed opportunistically while touching the head partial.

  7. Case-sensitive routing and double-slash paths. These are edge-case URL behaviours with no demonstrated high-value traffic or safe server-side redirect mechanism on the current GitHub Pages setup. Avoid adding redirect hacks that could affect existing URLs.

  8. Truncated curated-resource slugs. Changing existing slugs risks breaking backlinks and the audit itself calls this cosmetic. Preserve the URLs; address naming only for newly generated content if desired.

  9. Create a Wikidata item for FORRT. This is an optional entity/editorial project, not a demonstrated technical defect. It needs an ownership and verification decision before becoming engineering work.

  10. Add llms.txt. This is optional and not a Google requirement; the audit correctly notes that a useful file for this corpus would require ongoing editorial curation. No issue is warranted at present.

  11. Remove all short glossary/resource pages based on word-count thresholds. The content is intentionally dictionary/resource-style and includes scholarly attribution. No evidence was provided that length alone is causing a meaningful indexing problem, so no deletion or padding work is proposed.

Vorherrschende Sprache
HTML
Sterne
42
Forks
33
Ø Merge
16 Std. 3 Min.
Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
121

Entwicklungsumgebung

Erste Schritte

  1. Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
  2. Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
  3. Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
  4. Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.

Mehr aus forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Alle Issues in forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Ähnliche Issues

Weitere Issues zu Content

Neue Issues direkt in Ihr Postfach

Eine kurze Übersicht über anfängerfreundliche GitHub-Issues.