Nike’s architecture creates a paradoxical "Ghost Interval": their robots.txt is permissive ("Just Crawl It"), but their heavy Client-Side Rendering forces the crawler to "Just Wait" for a ~9MB uncompressed bundle to hydrate the DOM. Our audit reveals significant "Text content did not match" errors during hydration, confirming that the initial server response is effectively an empty shell compared to the client-side virtual DOM.
In contrast, New Balance (running on Salesforce Commerce Cloud) utilizes rigid Server-Side Rendering (SSR) to deliver a deterministic HTML payload. While less "fluid" for the user, this approach eliminates layout shifts and ensures 100% token availability for LLM scrapers immediately upon First Byte. It raises a valid engineering question: at what point does the UX benefit of an SPA become a CX (Crawler Experience) liability?
Nike’s architecture creates a paradoxical "Ghost Interval": their robots.txt is permissive ("Just Crawl It"), but their heavy Client-Side Rendering forces the crawler to "Just Wait" for a ~9MB uncompressed bundle to hydrate the DOM. Our audit reveals significant "Text content did not match" errors during hydration, confirming that the initial server response is effectively an empty shell compared to the client-side virtual DOM.
In contrast, New Balance (running on Salesforce Commerce Cloud) utilizes rigid Server-Side Rendering (SSR) to deliver a deterministic HTML payload. While less "fluid" for the user, this approach eliminates layout shifts and ensures 100% token availability for LLM scrapers immediately upon First Byte. It raises a valid engineering question: at what point does the UX benefit of an SPA become a CX (Crawler Experience) liability?
Read the architectural deep dive: https://websiteaiscore.com/blog/nike-vs-new-balance-technica...