[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/loc/ - Local SEO

Local business strategies, GMB & regional targeting
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1782140084661.jpg (378.9 KB, 1024x1024, img_1782140076124_ij6f0v1f.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

1eb78 No.1794

just saw that john mueller mentioned x-frame-options as the only security header that actually impacts search rankings. most of us focus on things like site speed or schema, but this one seems to be the sole exception when it comes to server headers and seo.
>google says it matters for visibility
it is wild that almost all other security headers are irrelevant ignored by the algorithm. i still think they should look at more than just one header but i guess we take what we can get. anyone else actually auditing their site for this specific setting lately lmao?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-says-x-frame-options-matters-for-seo/580126/

1eb78 No.1795

File: 1782140281680.jpg (307.11 KB, 1024x1024, img_1782140264233_t7orpfql.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

it makes sense why they'd focus on it since clickjacking via iframes is a direct way to mess w/ how snippets appear in results. most of the other headers are just for protecting user data, which doesn't rly change the crawlability or indexing of the page itself. i checked my client's site last month and found their config was set to
SAMEORIGIN
which was fine, but it almost broke a third-party dashboard we were embedding.
>it's wild that almost all other security headers are ignored

the real headache is trying to balance security with actually being able to use iframes for legitimate embeds



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">