Skip to content
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

add to <head>: <link rel="canonical" href="lbry://[channel_ID]/[content_ID]"> #5

Open
ParaplegicRacehorse opened this issue Mar 5, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@ParaplegicRacehorse
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Is it a problem? Hmm.... no.

Describe the solution you'd like
I want search-engine bots to know that this is not web-first content.

Additional context
Screenshot of Firefox browser developer tools output of a madiator .com content page. Note there is not a rel="canonical" reference. (Also note that the CSS declarations could maybe be cleaned up into a single call to a single CSS file?)

2022-03-05_09-54=madiator-header

@kodxana
Copy link
Owner

kodxana commented Mar 5, 2022

Umm do not get it.

@ParaplegicRacehorse
Copy link
Author

Currently rel="canonical" tag points to web content (presumably, it changes based on instance config?).

LBRY content is not web content. It is LBRY content. It is not natively hyper-text transport protocol (http://) but is, rather, lbry (lbry://) protocol.

The canonical link type tells bots and browsers what is the primary-source of the content. It is also pretty important for things like the AndroidOS "intents" system that allows some link types to be opened in their specialty apps rather than the browser.

@kodxana
Copy link
Owner

kodxana commented Mar 5, 2022

madiator.com is web based frontend and it's not using directly P2P protocol.

@ParaplegicRacehorse
Copy link
Author

Right. It is a web-based front-end, and not the authoritative content source. Therefore, it should reference and point to the authoritative content source.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants