Feature preview
The scope of keyword libraries and anchor text should be maintained separately by site. When using a common library, the same word may point to different targets on multiple sites, causing link landing point drift and repeated column link addition. Provide three steps of configuration habits such as word list splitting, scope limitation, and column trial run.
Multiple sites share a set of keyword libraries, will anchor text compete for links - yes, and the symptoms are usually not 'no link added', but 'where to add is uncertain'. The keyword library manages a collection of words, and the anchor text manages the automatic linking of words in the text. Under multi-site management, if two things share a word list, the same word may have candidate targets in multiple sites, and the landing points may shift with the index order or matching strategy, resulting in the same article linking to this site's special topic today and to another site in a few days. The correct configuration habit is to maintain word lists separately by site and limit the scope when necessary.
The keyword library is a place where SEO keywords are centrally managed: whether a word should appear in the title, which category it should belong to, and which article it should be included in, are all recorded in the library. It does not generate links itself, but only answers 'who does this word belong to.' This is also the reason why the common library seems harmless - the word list together seems to be convenient for maintenance.
The issue lies in the handover relationship. In a multi-site scenario, the same word is often handed over to different pages on different sites: the main site is handed over by the product page, the industry site by the case page, and the foreign trade site by another language version of the list page. After the vocabulary table is merged, the information layer of 'to whom' is flattened, leaving only the word itself.
Anchor text management is about automatically adding links to in-site keywords: words that match the word table are linked to the specified target address in the text. The scope of its effect should be judged by the site, because the target address itself is an in-site resource, and citing a non-existent path across sites will only produce dead links.
| Configuration method | Word table | Link landing point | Common results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent word table per site | Separate by site | Only linked to site addresses | Stable landing points, a new site needs to build a word table separately |
| Global shared word table | One word table for all sites | Ambiguity of target address across sites | Duplicate chaining, point drift, cross-site dead link |
| Global word table with range limitation | A word list | Target specified by site | Maintenance centralized, need to check the specified relationship station by station |
The first kind is point drift. The same word has candidate targets in multiple stations, and which link to point to depends on which record the system reads. The text remains unchanged, but the link changes, and it is easy to misjudge as 'version update caused' during the review.
The second kind is repeated chaining on the same page. After the common library, a word may correspond to multiple rules, and the same paragraph of text may be replaced multiple times. Readers see several consecutive anchor texts pointing to different pages, and the conversion path is disrupted.
The third type is cross-site dead link. The rules of Site A refer to the internal paths of Site B, and once Site B adjusts the column structure, the automatic links of Site A will fail collectively. This type of dead link will not appear in the navigation check of the site itself, but can only be checked one by one from the text links.
The first step is to split the word table. Under multi-site, each site's thematic word table is maintained separately, even if the word surface is repeated, each one should be kept separately because the information of 'who to take over' is inherently different for each site. When it is necessary to view it centrally, use a unified naming prefix to distinguish the sites instead of merging them into a single table.
The second step, limit the scope of action. If you really want to reuse the same word, specify the target links by site and write the applicable scope for the rules; global rules without an applicable scope should be considered for cleanup. Only one target should be retained within a site for the same word to avoid multiple rules hitting the same text.
The third step, trial run in a small range. The new rules are first implemented in a few columns, observe the landing and collection performance of the text links within one or two days, confirm that there are no duplicate links and cross-site directions, and then release to the entire site. This step also applies to settings that affect crawling such as site map and Baidu push, Bing active push: after the modification, first verify in a small range, and then promote to the entire site.
How much maintenance cost can a shared vocabulary save?What is saved is just the entry, what is added is the investigation. Once the point of fall and cross-site dead link occurs, it is necessary to check the links of each article one by one, the cost is far higher than maintaining a vocabulary list for each site.
What should be done if a word wants to be accepted in two sites?Each station should write its own rules. The relationship between keywords is inherently a concept within the station, and it is not necessary or appropriate to express it with a global rule.
We already have a shared library, how can we safely split it?First, export all rules and classify them by station, mark the entries that do not belong to the station as inactive, and disable them; then, establish a new vocabulary by station, starting from the core columns and migrating one by one, retaining the old rules for a period of time to facilitate rollback.
Preview
The anti-capture interference code blocks the party that performs bulk extraction: it inserts hidden text that is not visible to ordinary readers or adds random class names generated by the page address to the tags when rendering the main text. The text seen by normal readers in the browser does not change, so it does not affect reading. It is different from the sensitive word filtering and keyword replacement in content security settings, and it is recommended to verify it once from both the foreground reading and source code viewing perspectives after enabling it.
Preview
The article is scheduled for release at midnight, by default, no one will receive a failure email. The scheduled release is determined by time factors, and the document is set to pending release, and then the system scheduled task will turn it into an official document at the appointed time; the email reminder covers events such as new comments, email verification, order submission and payment, and subscription confirmation, and the release schedule is not included in the template. The fallback method is to check the pending release list and background logs the next day.
Preview
When a form is flooded by bots, the captcha should be added at the submission layer of the public entry, not just on the login page. Comments, registration, search, and other forms that can be submitted directly from the outside should be protected separately. The captcha only handles whether the person is real, and the sensitive word filtering, keyword replacement, and content review after submission constitute the second line of defense, responsible for intercepting garbage content that has passed the inspection.
