Skip to content

Conversation

@patrikbraborec
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@patrikbraborec patrikbraborec requested a review from TC-MO as a code owner August 1, 2025 14:06
@apify-service-account
Copy link

Preview for this PR was built for commit 70ffcd2 and is ready at https://pr-1751.preview.docs.apify.com!

@apify-service-account
Copy link

Preview for this PR was built for commit 10232ef and is ready at https://pr-1751.preview.docs.apify.com!

@patrikbraborec patrikbraborec merged commit f5e5013 into master Aug 1, 2025
10 checks passed
@patrikbraborec patrikbraborec deleted the improve/docs-titles branch August 1, 2025 14:52
Copy link
Contributor

@TC-MO TC-MO left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess I'll leave my review despite the merge.

That said, as the sole technical writer—and given that I'm automatically pulled in as a reviewer for each PR—I believe it's important to ensure that documentation-related PRs receive approval from the technical writing team before merging. This helps maintain consistency, quality, and accuracy in our user-facing materials. In the future, I'd appreciate if we could coordinate to avoid bypassing this step—I'm happy to prioritize reviews (and I already do) to keep things moving efficiently.

@@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
---
title: Development
title: Actor development
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don' think this is a good change, it already is inferred from the structure that this development is in relation to Actors. I would leave original title. Also this changes the title on the right side, which can get cluttered unnecessarily.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with keeping the sidebar label, but IMO this change makes sense, so that you know what you're looking at without having to look at the menu

| [Storage](/platform/storage)| View stored results of your runs in various data formats. |
| [Billing](/platform/console/billing)| Billing information, statistics and invoices. |
| [Settings](/platform/console/settings)| Settings of your account. |
| [Settings](/platform/console/settings)| Console settings of your account. |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the point of that change? The doc is within Console section, and this refers to Account settings. Moreover this is not specific Console settings , rather Apify acc settings.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree, this wasn't needed

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
---
title: Settings
title: Console settings
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not needed as explained above. This is within Console section.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @TC-MO, IMO it makes total sense to make the page titles work on their own, so that you don't need to look in the left menu to figure what you're looking at. This change also makes the open graph images work better, and provides better context for LLMs who also don't see the menu structure.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On one hand I completely agree that titles should work as standalone context for open graph and LLMs. That being said isn't this page about general Apify account settings rather than specific "Console settings"? It lives within the Console section, but it covers account-wide configurations. This seems similar to the case with the table mentioned above.

Moreover if you take a look at the UI labels within Console, I deliberately chose these titles so they also reflect the naming conventions from Console.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair enough, "Account settings" is a better name

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
---
title: Usage
title: Usage of storage
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For better syntactic parallelism with the Proxy usage, I'd suggest this wording instead.

Storage usage

slug: /actors/development
---

# Actor development
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is unnecessary, if this is to be the same as title front matter then docusaurus uses it automatically. This is only used when H1 is to be different than title

@jancurn
Copy link
Member

jancurn commented Aug 1, 2025

+1 to that

title: Actor-to-Actor integration
description: Learn how to integrate with other Actors and tasks.
sidebar_label: Actor-to-Actor
sidebar_label: Actor-to-Actor integration
Copy link
Member

@jancurn jancurn Aug 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The sidebar change was not necessary and actually it makes it worse

@jancurn
Copy link
Member

jancurn commented Aug 3, 2025

@patrikbraborec please can you review the comments from @TC-MO and me and create a new PR? Next time, let's make sure to wait for Michal

@patrikbraborec
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jancurn ok, sorry, I merged it when you approved it. Next time, I will wait for @TC-MO.

@patrikbraborec
Copy link
Contributor Author

This si the followup PR: https://github.com/apify/apify-docs/pull/1752/files

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants