Review rejected SEO audit suggestions

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#870 1 comentario 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Documentación
Claridad
Necesita aclaración
Estado de actividad
Estancado
Stack tecnológico
github, html
Área
content, web-dev

Línea de trabajo

Revisa el triaje de la auditoría en este issue junto con los issues #859–#869 abiertos por separado. Empieza comprobando qué hallazgos se confirmaron o corrigieron y si las sugerencias rechazadas requieren una nueva decisión; se considera terminado cuando el triaje está confirmado o se abre un issue de seguimiento específico.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

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.

Lenguaje dominante
HTML
Estrellas
42
Forks
33
Merge medio
17 h 18 min
PR fusionados (30 d)
111

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Todos los issues de forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Issues similares

Más issues de Content

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.