Review rejected SEO audit suggestions

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#870 コメント 1 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
ドキュメント
明瞭さ
説明が足りない
活発さ
停滞
技術スタック
github, html
領域
content, web-dev

調査の方向性

この issue の監査トリアージを、別途起票された issue #859–#869 と併せて確認してください。まず、どの指摘事項が確認または修正されたか、そして却下された提案に新たな判断が必要かを確認してください。完了とは、トリアージが確認済みになるか、具体的なフォローアップ issue が起票されることを意味します。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

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.

主要言語
HTML
スター
42
フォーク
33
平均マージ
17時間 18分
マージ済み PR（30日）
111

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io のほかの issue

forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Content の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。