SEO-RX future suggestion


(Lisa Sandler) #1

Greg- @barchard

I saw something recently about some changes you thought you might make in SEO-RX and now can’t find the thread.

As you know, I am a photographer. I am getting docked by SEO-RX -5 pts each when I put a #/number in an image file name. If I am running a slideshow from an event that has 30-60 photos in it, how am I supposed to label these files without a Number? So I’ll name files like this: boy-bris25, boy-bris26, etc.

What do you think about changing that?
thanks, Lisa
https://lisasandlerphotography.com/portfolios/events/


(scott williams) #2

Just because seoRX is docking you doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a big problem.
It appeared that seoRX is just attempting to get people to name their images descriptively or better, with keywords which is best practice.

Not just upload I got-001,002,003 etc.


(Lisa Sandler) #3

I get it. I wouldn’t have brought it up, but I swear there was just a post where Greg was saying he was going to change a few things for less points. So that’s my suggestion :slight_smile:


(Gregory Barchard) #4

I believe you’re referring to the comments regarding JS in head, not image file names. I have some items on my list but as Scott suggests, you can continue to publish your site. SEO-Rx isn’t going to stop you :slight_smile:


(Lisa Sandler) #5

I was the one who posted about JS in head, but that was in relation to the way Rapidweaver/Stacks/Themes load. I thought I saw something else that someone posted.
In any case, I was just adding to your list, that’s all. I realize it’s not great to label things as they were photographed; image_001, etc, but surely adding one number to differentiate between images shouldn’t dock me SEO points.
thx, Lisa


(Paul Russam) #6

SEO-RX is purely to assist you in improving your SEO, it doesn’t do anything to your site itself, it just point out areas YOU could improve.
Your free to ignore anything it suggests, it’s score is for you to be able to measure the changes you make.


(Lisa Sandler) #7

I KNOW. That was not my point and I’ve said that already, twice now. But thanks.