-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SEO 2020 edits #1625
SEO 2020 edits #1625
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding placeholder comments for the content team to resolve all of the existing TODOs while I start the deeper edit.
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
@@ -569,7 +568,7 @@ Feature | Mobile | Desktop | |||
`orientation` | 33.48% | 33.49% | |||
`max-device-width` | 26.23% | 28.15% | |||
|
|||
<figcaption>{{ figure_link(caption="Media query usage.", sheets_gid="1141218471", sql_file="TODO.sql") }}</figcaption> | |||
<figcaption>{{ figure_link(caption="Media query usage.", sheets_gid="1141218471", sql_file="TODO..sql") }}</figcaption> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tiggerito can you suggest the correct SQL file for this figure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like I stole this from you 😮
I asked the CSS chapter for some help:
And you provided the data...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi what's the solution here. Is there any formal SQL to reference?
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
@@ -637,7 +636,7 @@ Good | 15.44% | 8.39% | |||
Average | 25.49% | 20.19% | |||
Poor | 59.06% | 71.42% | |||
|
|||
<figcaption>{{ figure_link(caption="Good, Average and Poor ratios of Lighthouse v5 versus v6", sheets_gid="692150551", sql_file="TODO.sql") }}</figcaption> | |||
<figcaption>{{ figure_link(caption="Good, Average and Poor ratios of Lighthouse v5 versus v6", sheets_gid="692150551", sql_file="TODO..sql") }}</figcaption> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tiggerito can you suggest the correct SQL file for this figure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that came from the performance chapter @fellowhuman1101 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah interesting, so if the query itself doesn't live in the SEO directory then this value wouldn't be very useful and we can omit it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It’s my intention to handle a full path here, or even relative (../performance/query.sql
) in much the same way as we do for images. So would still be good to get the SQL from performance directory.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bazzadp does it currently work with absolute/relative paths or is there an open issue to track that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It will work with relative but not absolute. Will need to test to be 100% sure but pretty confident. Plan on looking at this, this weekend when I’ll add absolute support too. Will try to finish this out for launch - saw your updates but not had a chance to look at them yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that came from the performance chapter @fellowhuman1101 ?
Correct, this came from the performance chapter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This figure seems to have been removed, so no issue anymore.
Co-authored-by: Jammer <52051775+fellowhuman1101@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Aleyda Solis <aleydasolis@gmail.com>
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
Let us go through this years’ websites Organic Search optimization main findings. | ||
{# TODO(authors): Is "Organic Search" a proper noun? Or should it be lowercase? #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi should be lowercase! Should I directly update the doc? Just let me know the best way to proceed to fix :) Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi saw your comment below about directly fixing and pushing commits so I already replaced this! Thanks
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
{# TODO(analysts, authors): Note that mobile and desktop can't be combined into "all devices" since they are overlapping datasets and most websites would be double-counted. When citing stats throughout the chapter, you need to specify which client you're referring to or include a disclaimer in the intro that stats are mobile unless specified otherwise. #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@aleyda @Tiggerito I haven't scanned the rest of the document but I'm afraid that this might be common throughout. Could you suggest changes or push commits directly to this branch to resolve any of these issues?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi I had a scan through the markdown and only saw this case. I can fix this one. What's the process here, edit the latest draft, and remove the TODO lines, then commit?
I'm around for a few hours then out for the day.
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
When analyzing the usage of the disallow statement in robots.txt by using Lighthouse-powered data of over 6 million sites, it was found that 97.84% of them were completely crawlable, with only 1.05% using a disallow statement. | ||
This is notable as [Google documentation](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro) states that site owners should not use `robots.txt` as a means to hide web pages from Google Search, as internal linking with descriptive text could result in the page being indexed without a crawler visiting the page. Instead, site owners should use other methods, like a `noindex` directive via meta robots. | ||
{# TODO(authors): Tie this notable fact back to the data: is it notable because the disallow numbers are so low? What does that say about site owners following Google's guidance? #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi it's notable because of Google's guidance about not using robots.txt for that purpose and it is already tied to the "source" by linking to the Google documentation where these guidelines are given using the "Google Documentation" text as anchor text.
The URL is: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro where you can see the guidance:
"You should not use robots.txt as a means to hide your web pages from Google Search results."
--- If this is not clear, could you please let me know how to better rephrase it and link to make it clearer?... I thought it was :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What you've written is totally relevant and appropriate, my suggestion is to relate it more directly with the data. I'd suggest something like "The low usage of Disallow
statements seems to suggest that site owners are adhering to Google's guidance." if you agree with that interpretation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @rviscomi ! Understood :D I added the context on why adding disallow along more "indexable" pages rather than "noindexed" is what is notable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Slow progress. More TODOs. Please feel free to work on them while I finish the edits. The best workflow would be to resolve them by suggesting changes in the PR.
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
As part of our examination, we took a look at the incidence rates of different types of structured markup. The available formats include [RDFa](https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-primer/) and [Schema.org](https://schema.org/) which come in both the microformats and [JSON-LD](https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/) flavors. Google has recently [dropped the support for data-vocabulary](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2020/01/data-vocabulary), a vocabulary that was primarily used to implement breadcrumbs. | ||
{# TODO(authors): Is schema.org itself a "format"? #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi I really can't think of another way to call it - could you or maybe @Tiggerito suggest one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
schema.org is a vocabulary, it defines what can exist in its world. Formats are things like json-ld, microdata and rdfa which are ways to write information in a vocabulary. data-vocabulary is an alternate vocabulary that Google is dropping.
Chiseling in a stone is a format, the hieroglyphics you make are the vocabulary.
This said after a few 🍷s. So don't quote me, unless it works.
There are more formats. Those are the ones I looked for because they are the main ones that Google officially cares about.
In the future I think it would be worth looking into other things like open graph (a vocabulary+rdfa format) and its hybrid/proprietary use by Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tiggerito omg yes! they're vocabularies :) Will update accordingly @rviscomi!
Tony, you always bring "structured data light", with wine or without :D
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
{# TODO(authors): Is this disparity really noteworthy? The difference seems quite small. #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi Although the disparity between mobile vs. desktop is not "big" it's important to show how there are still slightly more desktop pages featuring one, because of mobile first index. Would you suggest to eliminate the mention of the desktop instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SGTM, I'll drop this
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
Additionally, we found that 38.61% of desktop pages and 39.26% of mobile pages feature JSON-LD or microformat structured data in the raw HTML, while 40.09% of desktop pages and 40.97% of mobile pages feature structured data in the rendered DOM. | ||
{# TODO(authors): This section introduces a few stats but doesn't go into your interpretations of the results. What do you hope readers take away from these stats? #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi I added context/interpretation of SD raw vs. rendered stats.
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
With the increasing popularity of mobile devices to browse and search across the web, search engines have been taking mobile friendliness into consideration as a ranking factor for several years. | ||
|
||
{# TODO(authors): MFI has been discussed earlier, so the "in fact" doesn't pack as much punch this time. Consider rephrasing. #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi the "last year reference" that had been included was correct. The MFI for new sites was launched in July last year (as can be seen here) but the confusion was caused because I hadn't linked to that "announcement page" but instead to one published this July describing the different stages of the process and the next ones. So, it was indeed last year.
What I've done to avoid confusions is to 1) add directly the year "2019" 2) link tot he announcement page about the last year MFI launch for all new sites.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds great thank you
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
{# TODO(authors): MFI has been discussed earlier, so the "in fact" doesn't pack as much punch this time. Consider rephrasing. #} | ||
In fact, [since 2016](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2016/11/mobile-first-indexing) Google has been moving to a mobile-first index, meaning that the content that is crawled, indexed, and ranked is the one accessible to mobile users and the [Smartphone Googlebot](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/googlebot?hl=en). | ||
|
||
{# TODO(authors): Can you clarify the timeline? You say "July last year" but the blog post is dated July 2020. Would "July this year" change how you structure this sentence chronologically? #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi I reworded this too along the previous change.
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
{{ figure_link( | ||
caption="Percent of pages that include each media query feature.", | ||
sheets_gid="1141218471", | ||
sql_file="TODO..sql" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Tiggerito I think this change obsoleted the last comment thread, reviving it here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My response was:
It looks like I stole this from you 😮
I asked the CSS chapter for some help:
#898 (comment)
And you provided the data...
cc @Tiggerito could you please help me out by adding the sheets_gid and SQL file to this new table? :)
…rchive.org into seo-2020-edits
|
||
{# NOTE(authors): I've made some ruthless edits to this section to remove everything related to synthetic measurement of CWV, including the entire Lighthouse discussion, which is orthogonal to the real-user aspect of CWV. Please push back if you disagree with any of these edits. #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the heads up @rviscomi ! @fellowhuman1101 since these are major editions from the performance section, could you please take a look too in case there's something you would like to change/replace? :) I'll check it out too but want to make sure you're ok with them!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @fellowhuman1101, that's great - I just took a look too, it's all good @rviscomi :)
src/content/en/2020/seo.md
Outdated
|
||
{# TODO(analysts): Please double check the following two sql_files, as these metrics are related to Lighthouse. #} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good spot @rviscomi . That chart did not come from lighthouse.sql. It's in:
I think @fellowhuman1101 did that one?
I now have 20 Github tabs, 10 drive tabs, and 3 sheets tabs open. And 15 tabs in my Visual Studio Code. Hopefully no more needed!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi @Tiggerito The data is from the Performance results workbook (Tab: Web Vitals per device) >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/164FVuCQ7gPhTWUXJl1av5_hBxjncNi0TK8RnNseNPJQ/edit#gid=1270303192&range=A1
Copied into the SEO chapter to create the charts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rviscomi can I reference this by: ../09_Performance/web_vitals_by_device.sql
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated the sql reference for this chart and the one after using a relative path
I've currently edited up through the Performance section and I hope to have the rest edited tonight (New York time). Apologies for the delay! Meanwhile there are a few TODOs for the team to look at while I finish. I'll mark it "ready for review" when I'm done, and open it up to comments on my edits beyond the TODOs. |
…em every time I also added additional references regarding links to Google documentation and guidelines
…rchive.org into seo-2020-edits
Several images have been fixed based on Tony's and Rick's comments.
Images automagically compressed by Calibre's image-actions ✨ Compression reduced images by 44.8%, saving 98.65 KB.
492 images did not require optimisation. Update required: Update image-actions configuration to the latest version before 1/1/21. See README for instructions. |
Thank you everyone! @aleyda if this looks good to you I can merge. |
It does! Please merge @rviscomi :) @ipullrank could you please leave a bit of time today to go through the pending reviews/feedback needed from you? I think is the only pending atm. Thanks a lot! |
Progress on #908 #1432
Editors' notes:
code
format for things likerobots.txt
and HTTP headers