The SEO Framework and Divi

Hi Franck,

TSF never supported generating descriptions for Divi. Here you can learn how the description generator works. The most important line of that story is: “(Step 3, [the getter]) strips all shortcodes, which is why page builders don’t work with this;”

The SEO Bar is programmed to recognize this behavior, and it is why it informs you of the issue. We strip shortcodes because they might output sensitive, dynamic, or otherwise unuseful information that can be accidentally cached via object caching. It’s a security issue we took into consideration.

So, it’s best to manually supply a description via the Page SEO Settings, or let search engines automatically generate one for you, which is also fine ??

Hi Sybre,
TSF has always supported generated descriptions for Divi. 100% since many years.
It still does on most of my customers websites.
The behaviour I described just appeared on some of these sites.
So it has nothing to do with shortcodes. Divi is a builder and an alternative to Gutenberg pages. It creates Divi pages and The SEO Framework fields have always appeared at the bottom of them and still do.
As Divi still has 650,000 customers, this issue could happen to other people.

Hi Franck,

I take pride in delivering level-3 support on these forums, which means that you can talk to the lead developer (me) at any time and that I provide workarounds to current issues we can’t quickly resolve in the plugin. I hope this emphasizes the authority I represent on the matter, and that I’m generally not mistaken about the statements I make regarding the functionality of the plugin.

However, I’m not perfect. And with that, I think we’re miscommunicating. Here are some facts:

• Divi Builder (not Divi per se) structures its content via shortcodes;
• TSF strips shortcodes from its description-autogeneration since its inception (TSF v1.0.0). You can see that in the first public version I uploaded to www.remarpro.com, which was back in 2015: source.

The generation of the description means that TSF takes the content and automatically creates a description for you. It is, however, possible to insert a manually-written description at any time, provided you can access the post via the default editor of WordPress.

Now, Divi can perfectly display HTML-content built with Gutenberg or Classic-Editor. TSF can use that content to generate descriptions. However, once you convert the page/post with Divi Builder (which wraps the content in shortcodes), it adds a flag via the post-metadata to affirm Divi Builder is used.

Back in 2016, since TSF v2.6.6, I added an extra check to detect that flag, which TSF since uses to enforce generator-incompatibility.

I never reassessed the interoperability between TSF and Divi Builder, since the security risk involving allowing shortcode output to be stored in memory (or even the database) is too severe. I am, therefore, unfortunately, predisposed to let down the 650,000 paying customers of Divi. Luckily, Google is capable of filling in the gap quite well–and does so better over time.

To close, shortcodes were a drop-in solution to a problem WordPress had before Gutenberg Blocks existed: The ability to insert dynamic content (like forms and galleries) directly into posts. Unfortunately, this drop-in has been adopted by page builders–generally used to create static content whilst forcing you to use a caching plugin due to its inefficiency. This is not to say that Divi Builder is a bad product; it is, however, a symptom of something that was addressed by WordPress’s Core team too little too late. Ultimately, I believe I dealt with that the best way I saw fit in The SEO Framework.

I hope this clears up some (or all) of the confusion. Feel free to follow up if you still have doubts. Cheers!

Sybre,
It’s not about pride or ego.
In fact, I gave a very good appreciation about your plugin in the past and I will keep it exactly as it is, that is to say very good. And, during the last years, I advised many people to use your plugin.
I suppose that since English is not our primary langage for both of us (as far as I know), we have some difficulty to communicate together. You write from the TSF point of view, I write from my Divi and TSF user experience. This communication could be better but there are other things today that are more important than that.
You write “I am, therefore, unfortunately, predisposed to let down the 650,000 paying customers of Divi”. It’s not a shame to pay for a good solution. Gutenberg that I use also will need some years more to be at the same level. And, as far as I know, you also try to sell some extensions against money…
We don’t live times when we should speak lightly about letting others down. And yes, I know I am nobody to give any lesson to you. So we can forget this conversation and continue our lives.
Be happy and stay safe,
Franck

Hi Franck,

I must apologize, it was not my intention to jab at Divi or you, but rather at the unfortunate disposition we’re in where we have to make compromises–wherefore I explained the reasoning behind our decision as verbatim as I could, without aiming to convey underlying meanings.

Nevertheless, I hope everything’s cleared up now ?? I hope you’re enjoying a peaceful Sunday. Cheers!