[HN Gopher] SEO mistakes I've made and how I fixed them
___________________________________________________________________
SEO mistakes I've made and how I fixed them
Author : MaximeHeckel
Score : 181 points
Date : 2020-10-13 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.maximeheckel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.maximeheckel.com)
| lxe wrote:
| How did we end up in a place where we need react, react-helmet,
| and graphql to build a static blog?
| AgentME wrote:
| Comparing to other static site generators, you might as well
| ask how we ended up in a place where we "need" Jekyll, liquid
| templates, and ruby to build a static blog. Static site
| generators are great for maintaining static sites with many
| pages that share templates and commonly-reused components, and
| React specifically is basically an HTML templating language
| that just also has the ability to run the same code on the
| client and update the page while it's open, which is really
| useful if you have any dynamic bits on your page. It's true
| there's some stuff downloaded and processed on the client
| that's dead weight if you're not actually using any dynamic
| features, but it's asynchronously downloaded and the page
| successfully does its initial render before that and it's about
| the size of an image or a font, so I think worrying about it in
| most cases is a bit overblown.
| lmarcos wrote:
| I guess you got downvoted because the main point of the article
| is SEO, not react/react-helmet/graphql... Although I have to
| admit that I asked myself the same question.
| agustif wrote:
| My only feeedback is go for nextjs, at least trailingSlash is
| solved for you by default so you don't screw up
| https://nextjs.org/docs/api-reference/next.config.js/trailin...
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| OP/Author here, yes looking into NextJS to migrate my blog
| over. I loved Gatsby at the beginning, but it's very time
| consuming to maintain on the long run, especially with all the
| plugins (I started removing those and rewriting some of them)
| [deleted]
| dzink wrote:
| The last time I benchmarked it, Google indexed static html
| content in about a week and dynamic JS-published content often in
| about 3 weeks. Frameworks like Gatsby, Hugo, and Wordpress have
| one or more of 3 problems: too complex, too slow, or too
| vulnerable, partly because of their mass appeal. So for serious
| SEO gains we actually stay away from them.
|
| This blog issue illustrates the too-complex problemof Gatsby -
| you don't find out about some minor configuration error until it
| gets indexed weeks later, and you lose substantial business due
| to the long feedback loop of SEO. Add to that the long
| compilation time, and you're looking for alternatives soon after
| investing massive resources in a setup.
|
| Hugo had a different problem the last time we tried it. In a test
| setup we did, a small configuration issue spewed your entire
| server and configuration data to anyone who visits a 404 link.
| Any issue with the setup created the volcano of sensitive data
| vulnerability. Didn't take the time to dig in any further.
|
| Wordpress is a behemoth, but because of that and slow hosting
| service providers it is incredibly slow to use on a hosted shared
| server, without caching. On top of that thousands of bots on the
| web are looking for and sending post requests to Wordpress admin
| files or php plugins (even if you're behind Cloudflare).
|
| There are faster and more performant ways to SEO, especially if
| you can code.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| >>> There are faster and more performant ways to SEO,
| especially if you can code.
|
| Such as ? ...
|
| I am part way through this, just trying to get a holistic view.
|
| https://www.fullstackoptimization.com/b/understanding-seo
| duhi88 wrote:
| Agreed for the most part. Anything where SEO is critical (most
| things these days), we use Laravel for (trying to move away
| from Wordpress), with some custom classes to help standardize
| important SEO stuff.
|
| I haven't had that experience with Hugo, but I pushed the files
| up to S3/Github Pages/Netlify and had them served from there.
| I'm a big fan of the concept.
|
| I've had a great time with Gridsome, the VueJS version of
| Gatsby. I don't understand why, with React, you need to install
| a 3rd-party dependency just to update your meta tags. Like, it
| should either be part of your main layout when you set up your
| site (my Laravel approach), or there should be a built-in
| configuration for it, like Gridsome has
| (https://gridsome.org/docs/head/). Every site needs this stuff,
| so it should be a first-class feature.
| helij wrote:
| What kind of a setup you had with Hugo to do this? I compile
| and ship to a server. Why would Hugo handle 404s? That's a job
| for a web server.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I like how a quarter of the people who've liked the article are
| Hacker News bots :P
| ShorsHammer wrote:
| This site is basically just a mashed potato of content without
| js.
|
| Anyone care to do a summary? It seems quite interesting.
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| Yes, sites require a bit of JS (added some client side feature
| recently). Hope the summary other commenter gave you helped
| capableweb wrote:
| - Make sure you either never have trailing slash or always have
| trailing slash (make sure you have canonical pages and
| redirects as little as possible)
|
| - Have canonical pages
|
| - Don't trust code you haven't read/don't understand
|
| - Make sure you view changes you make and that they are
| actually made when you think they are
|
| - Make sure what you want to be rendered on the page is
| actually rendered
|
| - Write tests
|
| Seems like a bunch of tips for people who are just starting out
| with web development, to not miss the most obvious problems.
| How this post is currently on the top of the front page will
| forever be a question for me. I'm glad more people are
| discovering SEO and it's importance, but this guide is
| specifically for one technology and are general tips about
| development rather than SEO really.
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| > How this post is currently on the top of the front page
| will forever be a question for me.
|
| OP/Author here, to me too trust me
| mkhalil wrote:
| Turning off JS revealed practically the same website, but go
| on.
| riboflavin wrote:
| Google Search: Surprisingly smart in some ways, surprisingly dumb
| in others.
|
| And this sort of thing doesn't just make a difference in
| indexing, but also in other places like analytics - Google
| Analytics will see a page with a slash and no slash separately,
| for example, which makes it hard to get an accurate picture of
| what's performing.
|
| We made a list of these factors here, this is #21 but maybe we
| should move it up! https://www.ercule.co/seo-content-
| performance/search-engine-...
| krisroadruck wrote:
| I have been doing SEO professionally for just over a decade at
| this point. I've seen that trailing slash issue on more sites
| than I care to count. It's especially fun when people link to the
| wrong version of important pages in their nav and footer creating
| 301'd links across their entire site. An easy fix, but
| frustratingly common oversight.
| marketingPro wrote:
| I need to ask, what's your job satisfaction like?
| walshemj wrote:
| In what sense? seeing the same problem multiple times can be
| a bit of a pain in the ass
| JustARandomGuy wrote:
| Note that the article is about optimizing a Gatsby site for SEO;
| it's not a general SEO tips site, of which there are many.
|
| With that said, it's quite amusing how small SEO changes can
| dramatically improve search visibility. It's one of the reasons
| why I point people to using Wordpress + SEO plugins like Yoast,
| which deal with most if not all of these edge cases
| automatically.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| If the trick to good SEO is simply adding a plugin, wouldn't
| everyone do it, then it becomes meaningless for crawlers to
| differentiate content?
| IncRnd wrote:
| Actually, that is the trick when using Wordpress. Yoast
| Premium is amazing and worth every penny.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The point of an SEO plugin would be to help crawlers
| understand your site, like handle link canonicalization,
| improve <title> tags like "Hacker News" -> "Foo's profile -
| Hacker News", and things like that.
|
| It ("on site" SEO) has zero bearing on what other websites
| are doing. SEO is just an umbrella word that also encompasses
| "off site" SEO like backlink building.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's the trick to "good" SEO, more like the
| trick to "not bad" SEO.
|
| Managing on-page technical factors (which is what a plugin
| can help you with) is primarily a matter of successfully
| missing your foot with hundreds of potential bullets.
|
| Getting SEO to "good" still requires good content and link
| building.
| wallawe wrote:
| This is sort of table stakes in the SEO world, not end all be
| all. First you must get these technical details ironed out,
| and then from there you have to focus on two things that
| differentiate you from competitors who also have the bases
| covered: 1. Backlinks - I cannot overstate how much a quality
| backlink can do. 2. Good content/utility
|
| That's pretty much it but it's obviously easier said than
| done.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| So, instead of worrying about installing plugins, time
| would be better utilized getting backlinks -- which, I'm
| not sure exactly sure how you do. You can't force people to
| share your content, but you can create content that's
| hopefully worth linking to.
| lmkg wrote:
| They're not comparable. Plugins is basically a O(1) task:
| You set them up once and then they're done. If your set
| isn't set up for technical SEO then crawlers can't read
| it and you won't rank well. But once you're set up
| correctly and it's not really possible to put more time
| into managing plugins and rank better.
|
| By comparison, building backlinks and writing content you
| can always sink in more time, and derive benefit from
| that extra time investment. So the plugin stuff is more
| like foundations. You need it, but it's not what your
| strategy is.
|
| And "building backlinks" is a lot about outreach. You
| need the content worth linking to, but there's also
| things you can do to encourage people to link to content
| that they already like. Relationships with other sites,
| encouraging people to tweet/like/reddit/socialwhatever
| your content, that type of stuff.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| No, you should install the plugin as it will bring your
| site up to a good base level of SEO quality - you'll
| still need to fill out texts and images but the plugin
| will tell you where and what you need.
|
| Generating backlinks is a skill you can aquire, but devs
| tend to sneer at it since a) it looks a lot like sales
| and b) there A LOT of shady practices
| richrichardsson wrote:
| > general SEO tips site
|
| Are there any of these that are any good? I know next to
| nothing about SEO and would love to learn a bit more, but I've
| never found any useful resource that isn't some kind of crappy
| spam-blog or so old that I'm left doubting if the information
| is still relevant.
| seanwilson wrote:
| > I know next to nothing about SEO and would love to learn a
| bit more, but I've never found any useful resource that isn't
| some kind of crappy spam-blog or so old that I'm left
| doubting if the information is still relevant.
|
| You could try my on-page SEO guide that's more aimed at
| developers (https://www.checkbot.io/guide/seo/) and my Chrome
| extension that checks these SEO factors for you automatically
| (https://www.checkbot.io).
|
| I tried to keep the SEO guide concise with everything backed
| up with links to authoritative sources like Google or
| Mozilla.
| krisroadruck wrote:
| Ahrefs blog is pretty solid. Also Backlinko (Brian Dean), or
| anything by Nick Eubanks.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| I often read backlinko.com and ahrefs.com
| cubecul wrote:
| +1. These are the only two worth reading for most people.
| sergeykish wrote:
| It is like "SEO" content optimized for search engine by
| people who want to sell.
| andygcook wrote:
| If you're doing content marketing, then this case study from
| Apollo Digital is very useful:
| https://apollodigital.io/blog/seo-case-study
| riboflavin wrote:
| > It's one of the reasons why I point people to using Wordpress
| + SEO plugins like Yoast, which deal with most if not all of
| these edge cases automatically.
|
| This is pretty good advice, though what we see more commonly is
| that Yoast is misconfigured (or not configured at all), which
| causes more problems than it solves. Another thing that happens
| is solutions like Yoast will throw lots of errors that actually
| don't matter because Yoast's goal is to drive interaction with
| Yoast. It's not always easy to make the distinction.
|
| But yes, for a lot of people "just use Wordpress" is a good
| solution, and an attentive Yoast install can be super helpful!
| llarsson wrote:
| Could you elaborate on what misconfigured means in the
| context of Yoast?
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Yoast does things like automatically set up redirects if
| you change pages, but that may or may not be what you need.
|
| Depending on your setup you may or may not want
| categories/tags/etc. to be included in your sitemaps but
| Yoast will put them there.
|
| In general I think Yoast (or really anything) is likely to
| be a net positive and while it makes some things easier it
| still requires work and thought.
| Minor49er wrote:
| I'm a little surprised that the article talks about keywords and
| not keyphrases. I've found those to be more valuable, especially
| in the long term, since they're typically harder to unseat if the
| keywords are too generic. I've set up a quick process for
| targeting keyphrases in sites and pages that I want to boost.
|
| First, I figure out how much interest is in a phrase that is
| related to what my site is about. I'll go to Google and Bing and
| start searching for various keywords and see what autocomplete
| suggests. If the suggestions are relevant, I'll follow them and
| note roughly how many results there are and how relevant the top
| results are to the phrase.
|
| Next, I'll go to trends.google.com and compare the most relevant
| phrases to see how many searches are being performed for each.
| Then I compare that against the list of quality results to see
| where the biggest gaps are. That helps me to identify the phrase
| that I want to target.
|
| Then, I'll plug the phrase changes into the page that I want new
| users to land on (typically just the homepage, but this can
| sometimes be a particular section or article, depending on the
| site and its goals).
|
| Then, I'll go to seowarp.com and throw the page through a Full
| Scan which reports on phrasing information. Near the bottom,
| there's a "Duplicate Content" section that will compare
| similarities between pages, so if there's anything that is
| textually similar to my target page, I'll adjust it to drive more
| attention to the target one for relevancy. I'll also do a Single
| Page scan for my target page. The results of that scan will have
| a "First Five Targetted Keywords Detected" section that will show
| any keyphrases that are found on the page. Again, I'll make sure
| that my target phrase appears and cull any others that might be
| taking away any attention from it.
|
| After that looks good, I'll distribute links to the page that
| contains the phrase. Usually I'll see results start popping up
| within a week, but can take longer depending on the strength of
| the campaign.
| butler14 wrote:
| People (even SEOs and other search marketers) often use
| keywords and keyphrases and keyword phrases interchangeably,
| and mean ostensibly the same thing.
| codingdave wrote:
| Thanks for writing this - I love to see SEO advice that is
| actually about the content and structure of your pages, and not
| about playing the SEO games.
| jrockway wrote:
| I checked my own website for these issues (trailing slash
| canonicalization, canonical links in <head>) and it seems like
| Hugo (or the template I started with) handles all of this for me.
| bilater wrote:
| Great article! I've had issues getting my Twitter links to show
| an image and hopefully this will help. Honestly it shouldn't be
| this complicated and Gatsby should have a more robust SEO
| component.
| tlug wrote:
| Call me old-fashioned, but when I look at the source code of a
| web page designed using the "modern" frameworks, it looks like a
| horrible mess of JS/CSS with very little actual content. E.g.
| take a look at this guy's code snippet's HTML source in the
| middle of the page - it's just a wall of <div>s and <span>s, for
| every single visible character.
|
| The search engines these days cannot even function without a JS
| interpreter, something that surely increases the complexity and
| cost of building one.
|
| Long gone are the days when one cared about semantic elegance of
| HTML code, per-site optimized CSS stored in an external file for
| easy caching, only occassional use of JS for easier navigation...
|
| Nowadays you don't build websites, you have to build "apps". It's
| one of many signs of the "appification" of Internet.
| unabst wrote:
| This. The elegance valued by so many in discussions seems so
| redundant when you think of how 99% of the machines that
| consumes the code will fail to appreciate it. The machine
| couldn't care less whether your actual header was a header tag
| or a div tag, and to then optimize for the things the machine
| does care about can result in horribly ugly code. And the
| reader of the page sees none of the code.
| Threeve303 wrote:
| > The search engines these days cannot even function without a
| JS interpreter
|
| I wonder if at some point while building a JS interpreter in
| the early days of Google for search reasons, they realized that
| the interpreter they spent all the time on could be packaged
| into a new browser to compete with Internet Exploder. Maybe
| instead it was all a conscious decision at the beginning.
| tomaszs wrote:
| Search engines navigating JS websites is a hoax. It never
| worked and never will. For SEO using JS for crucial parts is
| a death sentence
| tomnipotent wrote:
| > Search engines navigating JS websites is a hoax
|
| Google has parsed JS-generated content from businesses I
| work at and made it searchable within their index. That's a
| hoax?
| ivanhoe wrote:
| > E.g. take a look at this guy's code snippet's HTML source in
| the middle of the page
|
| well, on the other hand manually crafting the syntax-
| highlighted block of code isn't a lot of fun either
| j4nt4b wrote:
| It works great with Lynx (text-based browser in the terminal),
| which indicates it's at least usable by screen readers. Bonus
| points for not making me scroll past a horribly formatted list
| of links at the top of the page. I see your point, but at least
| give the credit for the tooling that generates an accessible
| text-based experience for those who prefer it. I'd rather have
| a few good tools that generate something reasonable and
| consistent than a wild west of everybody hand-baking their own
| personally flawed interpretation of the standard.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I have to agree. If you try to visit the site in the OP without
| JavaScript enabled, it doesn't even render correctly. There's
| little reason for a static blog to be written as a client-side
| web app.
| minerjoe wrote:
| Not sure what your seeing, but it renders fine for me in
| links2.
| AgentME wrote:
| I visited the page with NoScript turned on and it looked the
| same. All the HTML is sent fully rendered by the server, so
| there shouldn't be any reason to expect that JS would be
| necessary to show the page.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| there is still opportunity to do good web dev these days, but
| the choice is up to you.
| marban wrote:
| +1 I'm still getting a bad night's sleep when the W3C validator
| doesn't give me the green light at the end of the day.
| BossingAround wrote:
| microsoft.com, apple.com, a number of large "IT" companies
| have websites that throw W3C validator errors. I wonder
| whether there's a few that are completely valid..?
| walshemj wrote:
| 100% W3C has ZERO effect on SEO you are wasting time and
| effort
| AgentME wrote:
| Nothing about Gatsby or React by itself gets you non-
| validating HTML. The article has some W3C validation errors,
| but they seem to be caused by a few CSS errors they made
| themselves, the choice by their chosen CSS framework to put
| <style> tags for components directly in the page body next to
| their component elements, and their chosen code highlighter's
| choice to use <div> tags inside of <pre> tags. I find it
| surprising those two tools do that, though I wouldn't
| describe those issues as having anything to do with the rest
| of the ecosystem. (I have a Gatsby site using the component
| CSS library Styled-JSX and the code highlighter PrismJS which
| don't have those issues, and the site only has a few
| validation warnings that are purely from my own html.
| Apparently <section> tags are expected to have headers.)
| nfrmatk wrote:
| I generally agree that the web could be simpler. A lot can be
| accomplished with just plain ol' HTML/CSS nowadays. I think
| there's a kernel of truth in what you're saying about apps vs.
| websites.
|
| That said, how would you propose to do syntax highlighting
| instead of
|
| > just a wall of <div>s and <span>s, for every single visible
| character
|
| ? Rather than being a wall, it looks to me like it's actually a
| tree of <divs> and <span>s for every line and every _token_.
|
| I think the author has used Prism[1], so I assume the
| highlighting was done client-side, but even if you were to do
| the task server-side I think you'd end up with similar
| HTML/CSS, no?
|
| What would be a better approach to solving the same problem?
|
| [1]: https://prismjs.com/
| todotask wrote:
| From the WhatCMS, author uses Gatsby, assume no trace of
| Prismjs is used.
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| Hey, OP/author here, I do use prismJS under the hood, a
| flavor of it: prism-react-renderer, so it might indeed
| remove the traces of Prism.
|
| Agree that it's a mess of div and spans, but it does the
| job.
| Eyas wrote:
| Gatsby doesn't offer a syntax highlighter out of the box.
| It has markdown (and MDX) components that generate pages,
| and those in turn can have syntax highlighting plugins.
| AFAICT prismjs indeed is the predominant one used by Gatsby
| sites (at least, in mine). But thanks to SSR prismjs will
| typically run at compile time.
| saagarjha wrote:
| > how would you propose to do syntax highlighting
|
| Of course you'd use spans to do syntax highlighting, just
| like you'd use JavaScript to do interactivity. You know what
| the commenter means-using these in places where they aren't
| necessary at all.
| noahtallen wrote:
| The commenter specifically used that tree of spans as an
| example of the horrible mess that is modern HTML. So it is
| necessary here to deliver the feature, and I think the
| broader point is that we might see a mess in the DOM
| inspector, but it is a requirement to deliver certain
| modern features in a productive way.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Like normal text on a page? No. For one very specific
| thing that it's useful for? Of course. If it wasn't
| useful for something it wouldn't exist, the issue is
| using it for things that it has no reason to be used for.
| AgentME wrote:
| The code snippet seems like the only part where
| individual words are wrapped in their own divs or spans.
| It's not true that the whole article is like that. It
| seems like the article has reasonably semantic html
| elements present, just with minified CSS classnames and
| maybe a couple extra wrapping divs at the top.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I'm not the one who called out this site, and this one
| "OK" with its semantic HTML for the article content
| (though outside of that it has a bit more soup than it
| probably needs). It does render a bunch of stuff with
| JavaScript though so that's not great :(
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I recently required from the IT team a HTML page intended to be
| readable on everything. It is a simple instruction with 3
| headers.
|
| They came up with an app, full of JS. Don't get me wrong, I
| write apps for my own use (quasar / vue) so I like frameworks,
| but I wanted a simple plain page.
|
| Since they wanted to use a framework, I asked them to use
| https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ as the template and after
| some initial gasps of horror we had a working web page.
| L-four wrote:
| https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ works best with
| http://vanilla-js.com/
| cle wrote:
| So what? Web pages can do more than they used to. Engineers of
| yore similarly decried the ugly machine code generated by
| compilers. The HTML and CSS our browsers download are targeted
| at browsers, not humans.
|
| If someone writes a buggy, inefficient C program, we fix the
| bugs, we don't abandon C and rewrite everything in assembly
| because the resulting machine code is prettier.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _If someone writes a buggy, inefficient C program, we fix
| the bugs, we don 't abandon C and rewrite everything in
| assembly because the resulting machine code is prettier._
|
| Several languages have popped up to address buggy,
| inefficient C programs and the problems they cause.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| There are many people using static site generators like Hugo to
| output clean HTML like you describe. I find Hugo's approach to
| static sites produces much cleaner/smaller HTML than Next.js or
| Gatsby because you're in the mindset of thinking about the
| direct output of the templating language as opposed to JSX
| syntax which abstracts away the raw HTML.
|
| It's perfect for personal sites, landing pages, documentation,
| etc.
| BossingAround wrote:
| > Long gone are the days when one cared about semantic elegance
| of HTML code
|
| Why would I care about semantic HTML? HTML is at large
| generated for me, and is an implementation detail. I don't want
| to read nor "craft" HTML.
|
| > per-site optimized CSS stored in an external file for easy
| caching
|
| Is this not the standard nowadays, getting CSS files from a
| cache typically on a proxy like cloudflare?
| lmkg wrote:
| > Is this not the standard nowadays
|
| The AMP spec mandates the exact opposite, for whatever that's
| worth as a "standard."
| airocker wrote:
| WE encountered the same exact problems. WE use a single page
| application. prerender.io was our savior.
| pembrook wrote:
| This article pretty much sums up why static site generators are
| such a pain in the ass.
|
| If you're just starting in your static site journey after moving
| away from something like Wordpress, you'll probably feel like you
| discovered the holy grail for a while. Yes, Netlify is amazing at
| first, and yes, it's a pleasure to build sites without fighting a
| wonky old-school PHP CMS.
|
| However, this will wear thin after you start to care about
| creating regular content and the nuances of SEO (as the person
| who wrote this article discovered). I've gotten SSG fatigue over
| the last couple of years and have completely switched over to
| building marketing sites and blogs in Webflow.
|
| No worries about build process, no setting up SEO from scratch
| every time, no wiring up a wonky headless CMS and building rigid
| content models, no writing blog posts in VScode and then
| forgetting how I set up my front matter, no PITA trying to set up
| a new section on your site and then realizing it breaks your
| headless CMS wiring, Etc. etc.
| helij wrote:
| I do exactly the same with Hugo. I have a barebones template
| that is ready to go in a minute. I don't use Netlify but rsync
| public folder to server directly.
| raicem wrote:
| I know the author is probably scratching their own itch there,
| but articles like this make me appreciate my WordPress blog. I
| don't have to think twice about this stuff. Especially if my main
| goal with the blog is to grow an audience and not learn Gatsby.
| butler14 wrote:
| I have seen countless PSmillions spent on websites over a 10
| year career in web that could have been achieved - without
| compromise - with WP+yoast.
| Donckele wrote:
| LOL, on the latest iphone the website is blank!
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| Hey OP/author here, can you tell me a bit more about the issue?
| I've asked around and it seemed to work as expected on mobile.
| Would love to know more about what happened in your case
| tomaszs wrote:
| The only mistake I made with SEO was to do SEO in the first
| place. The way Google ranks pages makes today no sense. It is a
| waste of time doing SEO because above everything else, anyone who
| has more money will be higher and you can't change that. No
| matter how good content you have. I have more time to focus on
| what really matters when I ignored SEO and Google. At this point
| I don't care if it will index my website or not. It does not have
| any impact at all.
| shhsshs wrote:
| Hitting the Escape key on this site toggles the scroll bar and
| prevents the page from scrolling. Why is that a good idea?
|
| I was very close to assuming the site is broken and leaving,
| until I figured out how to re-enable scrolling.
| MaximeHeckel wrote:
| Hey OP/Author here, I just fixed this! I recently added some
| shortcuts, like a week or so ago, and this one went under the
| radar. Apologies for the inconvenience, and moreover, thank you
| for your comment without it I wouldn't have noticed
| franze wrote:
| I coded a chrome pluign called "SEO Live Test" previously
| "Obtrusive Live Testing Framework".
|
| It collects the live cycle of the page load, including static
| Dom, Dom ready Dom, JS executed Live Dom and runs various tests
| on those (plus some on the collected HTTP responses). All of the
| issues outline would have been fetched. Tests can be extended so
| any special cases minded.
|
| See here https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/franz-
| enzenhofer-s... a few thousand+ installs by now. If I would code
| it today it would make it part of the dev tools propably.
|
| The book to understand this approach to SEO and the rules in this
| framework is free for Hacker News readers btw
| https://gumroad.com/l/understanding-seo/hacker-news
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-13 23:00 UTC)