Preview
Issue #1
Site name in link preview should remove rudimentary characters/text. It should be only "Telegraf" not "Telegraf.ru"
- Љубиша Беговић
- They don't have site_name in source code.
But they use "Telegraf.rs", check title, description etc on source page.
"Telegraf.rs" is unique.
There is another serbian "Telegraf" portal and printed version and only "Telegraf" can be confusing for users.
Only "Telegraf" can be .bg also.
Check this:
{
"@type": "Organization",
"url": "https://www.telegraf.rs/redakcija/impressum",
"name": "Telegraf.rs"
}],
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Telegraf.rs",
"logo": {
"@type": "ImageObject",
"url": "https://www.telegraf.rs/static/img/telegraf-logo-4.png"
}
}
- Accepted by admin
- Valid issue.
See here for how site_name should be handled:
https://instantview.telegram.org/checklist#3-2-link-preview
- Љубиша Беговић
- Really? And what's appropriate site_name for http://topspeed.telegraf.rs/ articles?
Telegraf TopSpeed? - on site
TopSpeed Magazine? - Facebook
Top Speed Magazin? - Twitter
Telegraf can't be, for sure.
And for beogradnocu.telegraf.rs articles?
Not exactly identifiable...
Just lottery... And you subjective decision.
You already make a few mistake for my template and my reports on mondo.rs.
And what at the end - "sorry for mistake".
Great!
Three days after arbitrage started you change the rules...
- Accepted by admin
- You would set what you see on the main website if it's clear enough.
So in the topspeed domain, it's pretty clear. The name there is definitely not a url.
The purpose of the checklist update is to clarify / simplify these sorts of decisions for everyone. Before it wasn't clear how site names should be handled, now it's much clearer.
If it's difficult to tell which to use, set which you think is the best one. If a person creates an issue on your template about it, you can defend why you think that is. The checklist update helps to give better / clearer reasons that can be used to defend why your template would use a certain name or not.
- Accepted by admin
- Also, to clarify based on what you said in the original issue, it's not a good idea to blindly depend on meta info in general.
Across many domains, meta info tends to be extremely unreliable, much more so than what is displayed on actual articles, main sites, etc. That's why meta should generally only be used as a last resort if nothing else can be done. It shouldn't be default unless a domain is very good about handling their meta info (which many domains are not).
- Type of issue
- Rudimentary content not removed
- Reported
- Mar 16, 2019