{
  "id": 16238475,
  "title": "Five SEO “Errors” on My Static Site That Weren’t Errors",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/23/five-seo-errors-on-my-static-site-that-werent-errors",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-10-23T21:35:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "HackerNoon",
    "slug": "hackernoon",
    "url": "https://hackernoon.com/five-seo-errors-on-my-static-site-that-werent-errors?source=rss"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Five SEO \"errors\" on a static site proved to be either unnecessary fixes or easily resolved issues. Intellix Tutoring, a bilingual tutoring website using Jekyll on GitHub Pages, experienced reports from Google Search Console and a third-party SEO audit indicating numerous problems. However, after thorough checks, the author found only a few genuine concerns and three significant fixes.\n\nFirstly, four URLs reported as 301 redirects were confirmed to be redirecting correctly to the canonical address, negating the need for any changes. Next, 39 pages that were not indexed by Google turned out to be a result of the crawl delay due to the site's age and few external links. The author resolved this by manually requesting indexing for the most important URLs and improving internal linking.\n\nSecondly, an issue with \"Invalid datetime value\" in rich results was found to be an optional warning. Adjusting the datetime format to include the timezone offset across all 26 posts resolved the warning. The author used a regex substitution to ensure consistent datetime formatting.\n\nThirdly, the audit tool flagged 28 structured-data errors related to missing person names in the author property. However, upon investigation, it was discovered that Google's Rich Results Test was incorrectly predicting the issue. The articles referenced authors by ID, which Google's documentation suggested as a valid approach. After confirming the correct author information through the Rich Results Test, no further changes were necessary.\n\nLastly, the sitemap's lastmod dates did not match the actual page modification dates. The audit highlighted a discrepancy for 12 blog pages, but further investigation revealed that the sitemap dates were either outdated build timestamps or only two distinct dates due to a recent site redesign. Upon comparing the page dates with the sitemap dates, the author found that the site's modification dates were accurate, and the sitemap's lastmod dates were correct.",
  "summary": "Search Console and an SEO audit flagged dozens of problems on my static site. Only one was real, and one suggested fix would have made things worse.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}