-
Interesting framing. All the most extreme versions of statements.
Like, no optimizing a crawl budget isn’t a dial you can control. But to the degree you can work with engineering teams to find areas where your crawl budget is being wasted (product variants, refinements, etc) and you can stop that from happening, you fucking should. And if you’re not looking at crawl logs at all, you’re actively fucking up.
No, more crawling doesn’t automatically mean better SEO outcomes. Who the hell is saying this? But at the same time, you DO need your shit crawled. And if you have a site that changes its content frequently, regular crawling can be impactful, particularly if time and timing is tight.
No, your tech stack by itself doesn’t determine your SEO success. But if something in your tech stack is fucking up the ability for your site to be rendered to crawlers, or is fucking up your schema, or is fucking up your data pipeline to your data warehouse so that you don’t have analyitcs you can trust to make good decisions…well your tech stack may be harming your ability to succeed organically.
I could go on and on for each of these bullet points. The issue isn’t your bullet points; it’s that they are the most extreme versions of each of these things (with the exception of llms.txt because lol llms.txt). Most of these things have value to a certain degree. Most of these are things that can be improved to make your data better or your customer experience better or your funnel more effective. Other things not on this list will have more impact on organic traffic assuming you aren’t noindexing your website. But if you fix your framing so that it isn’t completely insane, nothing outside of the llms.txt bullet actually lack value if they can receive iterative improvements. I’ve seen some disasters that were caused by problems that were reflected in most of these bullet points at one time or another.
$0.02
