Review rejected SEO audit suggestions

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#870 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Documentazione
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Stato di attività
Ferma
Stack tecnologico
github, html
Ambito
content, web-dev

Direzione di ricerca

Esamina il triage dell’audit in questa issue insieme alle issue #859–#869 aperte separatamente. Inizia verificando quali rilievi sono stati confermati o corretti e se i suggerimenti rifiutati richiedono una nuova decisione; il lavoro è completato quando il triage è confermato o viene aperta una specifica issue di follow-up.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

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.

Lingua principale
HTML
Stelle
42
Fork
33
Merge medio
17h 18m
PR unite (30g)
111

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Tutte le issue di forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Issue simili

Altre issue su Content

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.