Review rejected SEO audit suggestions

Aberta
  • Algo errado?
#870 1 comentário 0 reações 0 responsáveis Ver no GitHub

Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia

Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.

Avaliação

Dificuldade
5/5
Tempo estimado
Mais de uma semana
Facilidade para iniciantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Documentação
Clareza
Precisa de esclarecimento
Status de atividade
Estagnada
Stack de tecnologia
github, html
Domínio
content, web-dev

Direção de pesquisa

Revise a triagem da auditoria nesta issue junto com as issues #859–#869 abertas separadamente. Comece verificando quais achados foram confirmados ou corrigidos e se as sugestões rejeitadas exigem uma nova decisão; considera-se concluído quando a triagem é confirmada ou uma issue de acompanhamento específica é aberta.

Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.

Descrição

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.

Linguagem predominante
HTML
Estrelas
42
Forks
33
Merge médio
16h 3min
PRs com merge (30d)
121

Preparar o ambiente

Primeiros passos

  1. Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
  2. Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
  3. Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
  4. Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.

Mais de forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Todas as issues de forrtproject/forrtproject.github.io

Issues semelhantes

Mais issues de Content

Receba novas issues na sua caixa de entrada

Um resumo curto de issues do GitHub para quem está começando.