Promote BRIXS Group - An SEO Perspective to Featured

Text edit.

Added some text.

Grammar edit.

Text edit.

Grammar edit.

That's a very sleek website. My only 'question', really, is the large (and heavy - 100 KB+) image on the homepage. The image(s) do look better than the average stock image, it has to be said, but take up a lot of real estate and push some of the important content below the fold, so to speak. Just wondering what the thought is behind that?

Regardless of the above, +1 from me.

Non-responsive but looks good on my tablet.

Case study contains some great content but needs some grammatical tweaking. I'll work on this through the week and feed back.

Has the PS been resolved (Views 404 port)?

Ok, I've carefully read the case study and have attached something of a rewrite of the first few sections. More will follow.

I struggled to make sense of one or two sentences but I'm hopeful that my attempt will iron out a few creases. Please let me know if I have failed to convey the intended information accurately.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Interesting stuff.

I've attached some further edits. Again, please check them over thoroughly to ensure I'm not misrepresenting your original copy in any way.

I wonder if you might want to add XHTML+RDFa to the top section of Applied methodologies? Or do you think that might conflict with your later argument of using Schema.org markup? I checked your source code - very clean. No way would Drupal spit that out without a lot of effort :) There's no RDFa markup that I could see.

When I get to the section 'what's been left out' I may add a line or two from your previous comment about phase II and responsive. I think that would benefit the reader despite the focus on SEO.

I haven't gone over my corrections/suggestions with a fine-tooth comb so if you spot the odd typo rest assured I'll review the whole thing when it's complete, including the Applied methodologies section which I have skipped over for now.

More to follow.

Of course, with html.php overridden so often I didn't even consider the default in modules/system, even though you mentioned it. D'oh!

I have no doubt many others would appreciate the stripped-back markup. I tapped my monitor thinking it was faulty! I did notice a few empty block-related divs, but I'm guessing these might have been a minor sacrifice for cross-browser design and layout, which, if is the case, I wholeheartedly approve of.

I'm wondering if the Case Study title might be better as something like:
BRIXS Group - An SEO Perspective, or
BRIXS Group - Flexible in work - SEO, or
BRIXS Group - The Case for SEO

If you're open to the idea I'd prefer the first, or maybe you have an idea yourself.

I'll likely finish the run through on Friday.

Just read #6 - As you say, debatable, but the pros and cons that you've laid out would make good content for the case study, if framed correctly.

I have a question: When do you think phase 2 of the site will be completed? And would it be a better idea to hold off on promoting this site to Featured until phase 2 is complete? Or would it still be a good Featured case study as it is right now?

The site looks good. The case study does need a lot more grammatical tweaking. I'd be happy to give it a look over once Tezza has finished his rewrite.

Thanks Kate, that would be appreciated. I'll give you the heads up when I'm done.

Fair question about phase 2. As the case study intentionally focuses on SEO, my personal opinion is 'publish and be damned' (love that quote, even if it's not entirely appropriate here!). Additional info revealed in this issue queue, which I will carefully transfer to the case study, does, I think, give the case study a sense of completeness, even with works outstanding. Just my two cents :)

A second case study with a different focus would be acceptable, imho.

You could, anyway, upload a second one to the community showcase. If you then think it meets the criteria for promotion, submit the request and we'll review it on its merits.

Ok, the third and final section re-write is in. Just to say again, please check it thoroughly for accuracy.

In the section 'What's been left out', I've included a few paras taken from the issue queue. I think they add some context and informal opinion, but I can see reasons also for not including them. It's your case study so I'll leave the final decision entirely in your own capable hands.

I'm not entirely satisfied with the overall result and I can see some places where improvements can be made, and I already have a few questions to ask. But I'll leave it a day or two and have a proper read over the weekend. I'll likely then make a few final adjustments and ask kwseldman to cast a fresh pair of eyes over it. (in fact, Kate - if you're following this, you can wait until my final pass or please feel free to chip in any time after these latest edits have been applied).

I think "BRIXS Group - An SEO Perspective" is an appropriate title, for reasons given and obvious to all.

Text edit.

Thanks a lot - again.

I guess that because you speak English natively you still see room for improvement, because I don't see it. We would have been proud to be able to write it in such a manner. O well, we'll see what you will come up with next. :-)

If you feel more information could/should be added please tell us what you would like to see and we'll write it up or give answers to your questions.

Before I put it down for a day or so I just want to be sure I clearly understand your use of 'responsive' and 'mobile' in this queue. I'm reading it as 'responsive design' and (separate) mobile website. If that's correct then I might have muddied the translation a little so I've re-edited the 'what's been left out' section, and rearranged its final paragraph for a slightly better narrative.

You're right in reading it as a responsive design (for the actual site) which will have a separate mobile site in the near future.

I agree the case study wasn't completely clear about this with the new edits, so for now I've made some small adjustments, awaiting your input.

Good edits

I've re-read the case study and made a few edits. Second pair of eyes still required.

I noticed the words 'Update results' in the 'Project team' section. Does that refer to the screenshots below? if so, probably best to remove it and add a sentence to the body of the case study guiding the reader to those screenshots.

Doing a quick review and think that you should remove the full stop at the end of "Varnish vs. stacked cache providers."

I'm not sure about the screenshots showing the various SEO performance / metrics. Maybe someone else can weigh in here. It's difficult to understand the story they're trying to tell without some annotation or explanation. Typically we expect to see screenshots of the Drupal site here.

If you want to keep them, I would suggest cropping them so that it's clear that a) it's not part of your site and b) we can properly the relevant speed/SEO detail and also, add at least one more screenshot from your site.

To clarify, I was trying to perhaps create a montage of the relevant crops from the non-Drupal site screenshots? Feel free to tell me that is a dumb idea.

Hi lisarex,

Thanks for your input, but the whole case study is actually related to the SEO part combined with Drupal, which tells about how we applied a technique in order to create a webpage that results in not only fast, but also semantically correct. Most websites tries to climb the search index by purchasing a paid service. Why do you want to spent money one these services where you also can achieve these results just by developing your website SEO correctly? Another thing what we are trying to proof is that even new websites has a chance climb this ladder.
Mmm... we could put another screenshot of Brixsgroep, but since the case study is more scientific than the actual content, I am not sure what additional advantage it would bring to this case study.

Friendly regards,

Zaka

I removed the period from the heading and added a question mark here: Schema.org isn’t part of Drupal (yet?) - unless schema.org is going to become part of core then I think the question mark is necessary to avoid any misleading inference.

I'm happy enough with the text now. It could be improved, but it reads well enough and is easy to follow.

I think lisarex's view that creating a montage from the 'performance' images to more clearly show the positive SEO results is a valid one. The graphs are reasonably clear but I can barely follow the detail in the GTmetrix, Pingdom, ShowSlow and SiteAlert screenshots.

+1 for RTBC when lisarex is happy with the detail provided by the additional screenshots.

Thanks! That looks better that you've identified the screenshot with the service.

+1

Promoted.

Grammar edit.