SEO: comparison cluster, /why-gofr, migration guides

[aryanmehrotra]

What this PR does

Adds the SEO starter pack from the growth plan: 5 comparison pages, /why-gofr, 2 migration guides, and staged SEO assets for follow-up manual review.

Files added

Comparison cluster (8 pages, ~6500 words combined)

• src/app/comparison/page.md — 4-way index, targets "best go framework for microservices 2026"
• src/app/comparison/gofr-vs-gin/page.md — targets "gofr vs gin"
• src/app/comparison/gofr-vs-fiber/page.md — targets "gofr vs fiber"
• src/app/comparison/gofr-vs-echo/page.md — targets "gofr vs echo"
• src/app/comparison/gofr-vs-chi/page.md — targets "gofr vs chi"

Conversion + migration

• src/app/why-gofr/page.md — replaces the empty layout shell
• src/app/migrate/from-gin/page.md — week-long migration walkthrough
• src/app/migrate/from-express/page.md — Express/Node migration guide

Staged for manual review (in .seo-starter-pack/, not yet wired)

• SCHEMA_JSONLD.md — Organization, SoftwareApplication, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage, HowTo, TechArticle blocks
• META_DESCRIPTIONS.md — unique descriptions for top 20 docs pages

Strategic context

None of Gin, Fiber, Echo, or Chi maintain first-party comparison pages, migration guides, or "why X" content. The entire query cluster is open. faun.dev already ranks for "GoFr vs Chi" — proves there's intent we're not capturing.

Path deviations from original spec

The pages were placed following the repo's existing naming convention rather than the spec's suggested paths:

• Comparison subpages: gofr-vs-{framework}/ (not {framework}/) — consistent with SEO intent ("GoFr vs Gin") and the URL structure already in place
• Migration subpages: from-{framework}/ (not {framework}-to-gofr/) — consistent with all other 11 migration pages already in the migrate directory

Voice + style notes

Each page is written in maintainer voice, not marketing voice:

• Leads with a specific moment or technical claim, not a definition.
• Shows code that fails first, then code that works.
• Takes a position; no "both frameworks are great" hedging.
• Includes an honest "when GoFr is the wrong choice" section.
• Avoids "leverage", "seamlessly", "comprehensive solution", "looking ahead", etc.

Local build status

✅ Build verified — npm run dev on port 4242 confirmed /comparison/gofr-vs-gin renders with correct title, meta description, structured data (TechArticle + BreadcrumbList schema), and syntax-highlighted code samples.

What this PR does NOT do

• ❌ Add the /blog route (separate work)
• ❌ Modify src/app/layout.jsx schema (staged for manual paste)
• ❌ Fix Markdoc doc titles (separate PR against gofr-dev/gofr)
• ❌ Submit URLs to Search Console (must be done manually after merge)

Review checklist

• Each comparison page reads accurate vs. the competitor's actual capabilities (especially Fiber's Fasthttp section, Chi's "different category" framing)
• /why-gofr opening anecdote rings true (edit if it doesn't match your actual story)
• Migration guide week-by-week plan is realistic
• After merge: paste schema JSON-LD into layout.jsx, submit URLs to Search Console

[aryanmehrotra]

Closing — content belongs in gofr-dev/gofr/docs/ and gets overlaid at build time via the Dockerfile COPY. The gofr/development branch already has all the page.md files in the right place.