@adegeo The content was intentionally split out (from the old csproj.md article) based on this request. So to move it back in contradicts the intent of that issue, which was to improve SEO/findability. Do you think linking from the migration guide will solve that problem?

@gewarren Ahhh gotcha. OK that makes sense why it was still here. However, I only saw 32 visitors in the last month, that can be considered such low traffic that the article isn't worth keeping around. I don't know if we're hitting our SEO targets for this article as it stands. Searching for various forms of assemblyinfo csproj file and assemblyinfo csproj error and duplicate assembly attribute csproj continually point me to StackOverflow Q/A and other articles. I couldn't surface this one.

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42138418/equivalent-to-assemblyinfo-in-dotnet-core-csproj
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10311347/duplicate-assemblyversion-attribute

Something else I noticed though too is that I think the MSBuild info article may be hurting overall SEO also since all of the H2s have no descriptions, only links under them. Anyway, with the low traffic, working on adding descriptions to the H2s in the MSBuild article, cross linking to it in further migration guides, we should really have all the bases covered.

Thoughts?

@gewarren Ahhh gotcha. OK that makes sense why it was still here. However, I only saw 32 visitors in the last month, that can be considered such low traffic that the article isn't worth keeping around. I don't know if we're hitting our SEO targets for this article as it stands. Searching for various forms of assemblyinfo csproj file and assemblyinfo csproj error and duplicate assembly attribute csproj continually point me to StackOverflow Q/A and other articles. I couldn't surface this one.

The article has only been live since January 8th 2021.

@gewarren

The article has only been live since January 8th 2021.

Ahh OK that makes sense then why results haven't surfaced. Do you think it would be better to move this to an include and have it in both? Full reference in this article and then the good-for-SEO article?

Do you think it would be better to move this to an include and have it in both? Full reference in this article and then the good-for-SEO article?

I don't think that's necessary. I wonder, though, if we should consider breaking up msbuild-props.md into separate articles for each section, for SEO.

@gewarren regarding SEO. H2s should be SEO scannable, but I think it helps SEO to have a paragraph description right below the H2. I think the lack of text below the H2 hurts these sections.

Still good to commit this? I just fixed a merge conflict. If you're happy with this change, let's merge it in.