Support » Plugin: The SEO Framework » About: Feature suggestions

  • Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)


    Hi there!

    Thank you so much for using The SEO Framework!

    Unfortunately, I must ask you to hold off on feature suggestions until a feature suggestion voting board is active.
    This is because it takes a lot of time for me to address each feature request, and not everyone may be too fond of a particular new feature.

    Within the suggested boards you can discuss and provide feedback for new features. I’ll post a link to the voting board beneath this comment when it’s ready.

    I hope you understand!

    https://wordpress.org/plugins/autodescription/

Viewing 11 replies - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Hi Sybre Waaijer, this is a brilliant idea and one that will definitely help you.

    I read most of your replies just to learn more about SEO and some answers are very similar or almost identical. This setup will allow you to concentrate more on improving the plugins functionality and adding new options as per requests. At the same time it allows people using this plugin to share their ideas and thoughts and get more involved in discussions about requests made.

    Thumbs up from me.

    Kind regards

    I have a feature suggestion.

    In the document site title separator, please include colon (:). Colon is one separator that Google recognizes and so you can add to the plugin in future so that those people who want to use a colon can have it.

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi leapyear16,

    That’s a great idea! But I don’t think it’s super elegant to add more separator boxes, as it will overflow and add a new row (“less is more”).

    I’ll add a filter for this in the near future, and I’ll see if it can be automatically be used throughout the interface (JavaScript, settings, etc.).
    I’ll also consider making it a free extension :), with dozens of new separators.

    A lot has still to be done, and I’m currently overwhelmed with getting every aspect of this plugin perfect, which is my current priority.
    I even still have to get onto the documentation of 2.6.0 and later…

    I also haven’t been able to find a suitable “feature suggestion” forum plugin. So if anyone has any good suggestion on that one, fire away :).

    Hi Sybre, have you thought about just using trello (eg. like wp-rocket has done here)?

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi Max,

    I’d much more like something like cPanel’s Feature Request board — and of course on-site.
    It might be possible with some bbPress magic :). But it’s also a big challenge.

    For now, I’m accepting feature requests on these forums. Although the presence of this topic already surely helps lighten my day.

    I’ll keep Trello in mind for if I can’t make this cPanel-like board happen this year. I also still need to write a theme for TheSEOFramework.com

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Update:

    You can leave feature requests on the GitHub issues board :).

    Feel free to contribute to any topics/issues labeled “Enhancement”.

    Reason: I have not been able to find a suitable plugin for a request board; and making one costs a huge amount of time.

    Cheers!

    Hi,

    thanks for the great plugin and exceptional support!

    It would be great if you can add a checkbox to “index” specific tags and categorys. e.g.: I want the most of the tags “noindex”, but a a few of them should be indexed. 🙂

    And maybe you can fix this bug…on static front pages like mine the canonical tag isn’t working correctly. On page /2/ it shows not http://mysite.com/page/2/, the canonical tag points to the front page http://mysite.com/. I don’t think its a good idea.

    Thank you!

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi Bichareh,

    Negative options
    “Negative” options have been discussed earlier. And the answer to that is:
    It’s not only very confusing for the user, but it’s also extremely difficult to maintain for me.

    Difficult: This is because you’re holding and looking at a subset of options, which can then hold multiple meanings while still being positive in the database. This requires an adjustment of the whole code on multiple levels. The non-available options (positive) are then also hidden. Which, with the way options are saved, will be filtered out when saving a post, page, taxonomy or term. So this also causes deletion of data… or a complete rewrite for non-conventional option handling.

    Confusing: When the user decides to switch from all categories not being indexed, and then they are, all options should then be reversed… at some level. This reverses the Game Theory in real time level, which is always foul.

    Although I understand that it would be very conventional, I’m afraid such option will never be implemented. Neither for posts and pages nor taxonomies and terms.

    Incorrect URL
    About the canonical URL, I believe this was fixed as of 2.7.0.
    My test page shows the correct URLs, so could you verify you’re running 2.7.0?

    If this bug still occurs and you’re running The SEO Framework 2.7.0, please open a new topic and we’ll discuss it further over there :).

    Thanks and have a great weekend!

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Sybre Waaijer.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Sybre Waaijer.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Sybre Waaijer.

    Automatically remove ‘stop words’ from slug, just in case they hurt SEO (I’m unsure).

    Here’s a list: http://www.ranks.nl/stopwords

    Thanks!

    Plugin Author Sybre Waaijer

    (@cybr)

    Hi Geetar,

    They don’t hurt SEO (anymore).
    Removing stopwords automatically might even hurt some search terms, like “The SEO Framework”.

    Google also considers removing or using stop words from context automatically in its own search query parser. <Patent 7,409,383 and Patent 7,319,994>

    I quote:

    For example, when the context data includes sets of documents, the documents for S- may refer to songs that contain the term “way” in the title but are not titled “Show Me the Way,” such as the songs “My Way” or “Walk this Way.” Accordingly, the context data for S- and S+ are likely to be determined to be not substantially similar, (acts 709 and 711), and it would thus be desirable to use S+ as the final search query.

    Typically, given a query, the performance bottleneck is the time it takes to decode the occurrences (which are typically delta encoded to save space, and thus have to be followed from the beginning) of the most frequently occurring term, especially if this term is a so-called stop-word such as “the”. The present invention allows the search engine to simply look at the documents that contain the least popular term (by decoding its occurrences). This allows the search engine to decode other terms in the document to see if any of the other terms match more popular terms in the query. If so, the search engine can simply advance to that position in the “linked list of occurrences” for the other (more popular) terms.

    Conclusion: It’s best to leave everything open to interpretation and not to “over-optimize”. Google’s AI is much smarter than most people think.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Sybre Waaijer.

    Hi Sybre,

    Thanks for your prompt reply!

    You’re right, I’ve read that elsewhere. Ig: “Matrix” (mathematics) and “The Matrix” a movie.

    Thanks!

Viewing 11 replies - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • The topic ‘About: Feature suggestions’ is closed to new replies.