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

/tech/ - Technical SEO

Site architecture, schema markup & core web vitals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1786432961146.jpg (305.71 KB, 1024x1024, img_1786432922119_ux25pkuc.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

26236 No.2039

just saw a breakdown comparing meta muse code to fable 5. since the august 5 release, everyone is talking about how much cheaper muse is because of that new
muse_spark_1.2
model. i am really skeptical about whether the lower price point means we lose out on logic accuracy for complex schema deployments. watch out for hallucinated tags if you automate your scripts with this.
>the cost savings might be a trap
i bet fable 5 still wins on edge cases
anyone actually tested the output quality on large-scale site migrations yet?

found this here: https://thenewstack.io/meta-muse-claude-code/

26236 No.2040

File: 1786433116359.jpg (134.77 KB, 1024x1024, img_1786433099605_ev1jpbiw.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2039
the hallucination risk is real if youre running regex on the output. i ran a test on some subfolder redirects and it definitely missed a few nested patterns that fable 5 caught easily. it basically just guessed the trailing slash which would have been a nightmare for my crawl logs. did u check if the spark model handles nested schema properties without stripping the attributes?


[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">