DEV Community: Bohdan Prytulyak

Hreflang Wasn't the Problem: What I Learned Auditing Multilingual WordPress Websites

Bohdan Prytulyak — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 08:18:57 +0000

A while ago, I started noticing the same pattern again and again.

A website owner would launch an English version of their WordPress site, configure hreflang tags, submit updated sitemaps, and wait for rankings to improve.

A few weeks later, the same question would appear:

"Why isn't my English page ranking in Google?"

The first suspect was always hreflang.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever been part of a multilingual SEO discussion where hreflang wasn't blamed within the first few minutes.

And to be fair, that seems logical.

The issue appeared after launching a multilingual website, so the problem must be somewhere in the multilingual setup.

Except that, in many cases, it wasn't.

After auditing several multilingual WordPress websites over the last few years, I started seeing the same pattern. Hreflang was often implemented correctly. Google understood the language relationships between pages.

The real issue was usually hiding somewhere else.

The First Surprise: Canonical Tags

One of the most memorable cases involved an English service page that looked perfectly fine at first glance.

The content was translated.

The URL structure was correct.

The language switcher worked.

The hreflang implementation passed every validation tool I tried.

Yet the page barely appeared in search results.

At first, I was convinced the issue had to be somewhere inside the hreflang setup. After all, everything else seemed normal.

Then I noticed something unexpected.

The English page contained a canonical tag pointing to the original language version.

In other words, the website was sending Google two different messages at the same time.

One signal said:

This is the English version of the page.

The other said:

This is not the page you should prioritize.

The funny thing is that once you notice the conflict, the problem suddenly looks obvious.

Before that moment, it can be surprisingly easy to miss.

Since then, I rarely review hreflang without checking canonical tags first.

Translation Is Not Localization

Another issue became much more common after AI translation tools improved.

And honestly, modern translation tools are impressive.

You can translate an entire website in a matter of hours. The grammar is usually correct. The spelling is fine. The sentences make sense.

A few years ago, that would have felt almost impossible.

But something still feels off on many translated websites.

What caught my attention was that some English pages technically looked perfect while still feeling strangely disconnected from their audience.

The content was translated.

The intent wasn't.

Many pages still contained examples written for local customers, references that only made sense in the original market, or calls to action designed for users with completely different expectations.

From the website owner's perspective, the page was English.

From the visitor's perspective, it often felt translated.

That difference is difficult to measure, but I suspect it matters more than many people realize.

The Metadata Nobody Checked

This was probably the most surprising discovery.

Not because the issue was complicated.

Because it was hiding in plain sight.

The page was translated.

The navigation was translated.

The URLs were translated.

Even the images had been updated.

The title tags weren't.

Neither were the meta descriptions.

The website owner assumed everything had been localized correctly because every visible element looked fine.

Why would anyone suspect metadata?

A closer inspection revealed that the multilingual plugin wasn't translating SEO metadata automatically.

As a result, English pages still carried titles and descriptions written for a completely different audience.

It was one of those moments where you spend an hour looking for an advanced technical issue and eventually discover that the problem was sitting right in front of you all along.

Internal Linking Tells a Story

Another thing became clear during these audits.

Most multilingual websites have one mature section and one younger section.

The original language version usually contains years of content, internal links, case studies, service pages, and supporting articles.

The English section often consists of a handful of translated pages.

Google can see that.

Users can feel that.

And rankings often reflect that reality.

I kept seeing websites where English pages technically existed but felt isolated.

They had fewer internal links.

Less supporting content.

Fewer references from other pages.

In some cases, the only way to reach them was through the language switcher.

That may be enough for users.

It is not always enough to build authority.

Maybe the Problem Is Time

This is probably the least exciting explanation.

But sometimes it is also the correct one.

Not every ranking issue comes from a technical mistake.

Sometimes a multilingual section is simply new.

The pages are indexed.

The setup is correct.

Google understands the language relationships.

Nothing appears broken.

The website just hasn't built enough authority yet.

A few months ago, I was watching the performance of a newly published English article.

It entered Google's index quickly.

Much faster than similar pages would have a few years ago.

At first, almost nothing happened.

Then impressions started appearing.

Slowly.

A few here.

A few there.

Not enough to celebrate, but enough to suggest Google was beginning to test the page.

That was a useful reminder.

Indexing and ranking are not the same thing.

It's easy to forget that when monitoring new content.

What I Took Away From These Audits

The biggest lesson was surprisingly simple.

When an English page struggles to rank, hreflang should not automatically become the main suspect.

Sometimes the problem is canonical.

Sometimes it is localization.

Sometimes it is metadata.

Sometimes it is internal linking.

And sometimes nothing is actually broken.

The page simply needs more time to establish itself.

That doesn't make hreflang unimportant.

It simply means multilingual SEO is usually much bigger than hreflang alone.

At least that has been my experience so far.

I'm curious whether other developers, SEO specialists, or website owners have seen similar situations.

Have you ever spent hours troubleshooting hreflang only to discover that the real problem was somewhere else?

Originally published on PBB Design:
https://pbb.design/en/blog/dev/google-ignores-your-hreflang/

The Most Misunderstood Tag in SEO: What Canonical URLs Actually Do

Bohdan Prytulyak — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:23:48 +0000

Canonical tags are one of those SEO features that almost everyone has heard about.

Most website owners know they should exist.

Many developers add them automatically through SEO plugins.

And yet, I regularly see websites where canonical tags are either misunderstood, misconfigured, or expected to solve problems they were never designed to solve.

The biggest misconception?

Many people believe canonical tags fix duplicate content.

They don't.

At least not in the way most people think.

For something that is usually just a single line in the page source, canonical tags generate a surprising amount of confusion.

I've seen websites with perfectly valid canonical tags and terrible indexing problems.

I've also seen websites with missing canonicals that ranked perfectly well for years.

That's usually the moment when people realize that canonical URLs are not a magic SEO switch. They're simply one signal among many.

The challenge is understanding when that signal matters and when it doesn't.

The Problem Usually Starts With Multiple URLs

A website often ends up with several URLs displaying essentially the same content.

Examples include:

tracking parameters
filtered category pages
pagination
print versions
HTTP and HTTPS variations
www and non-www versions

From a user's perspective, everything looks normal.

From a search engine's perspective, things become less clear.

Which URL should be indexed?

Which one should receive ranking signals?

Which version represents the original page?

That's where canonical tags come in.

Canonical Is a Hint, Not a Command

This is probably the most important thing to understand.

A canonical tag tells search engines:

"This is the preferred version of the page."

It does not force Google to obey.

Search engines can ignore canonicals if they believe the signal is incorrect or inconsistent.

I've seen websites where:

page A points to page B
page B points to page C
internal links point somewhere else
XML sitemaps reference different URLs

At that point, the canonical tag becomes just another conflicting signal.

The idea makes sense if you think about it from a search engine's perspective.

Imagine being told that URL A is the preferred version while every internal link, sitemap entry, and redirect suggests URL B instead.

A search engine has to decide which signal is more trustworthy.

And sometimes the canonical tag loses that argument.

Why Canonicals Sometimes Fail

What makes canonical tags particularly tricky is that they often appear to be working.

The page loads.

The source code looks correct.

The SEO plugin shows a green checkmark.

Everything feels fine.

Meanwhile, search engines may be receiving several completely different signals from redirects, internal links, XML sitemaps, and navigation structures.

When those signals disagree, the canonical tag becomes part of the conversation rather than the final decision.

In many cases the tag itself is technically correct.

The problem is everything around it.

For example:

inconsistent internal linking
duplicate page titles
duplicate content blocks
parameter URLs included in sitemaps
conflicting redirects

Google evaluates the entire picture.

A canonical tag alone cannot compensate for a messy website structure.

WordPress Makes This Easier — And Sometimes Harder

WordPress deserves some credit here.

Compared to fifteen years ago, managing canonical URLs has become dramatically easier. Most website owners never even have to think about them because modern SEO plugins generate them automatically.

The problem is that websites rarely stay simple.

New plugins get installed.

Themes change.

Developers add custom templates.

Multilingual content appears.

And suddenly something that worked perfectly for years starts producing unexpected signals.

Modern SEO plugins generate canonical URLs automatically.

Most of the time, that's exactly what you want.

But problems appear when:

developers hardcode canonicals
multiple SEO plugins are active
custom templates generate conflicting tags
multilingual configurations become complicated

Ironically, many canonical issues come from trying to "optimize" what was already working.

What Actually Helps Search Engines

In my experience, search engines respond best when canonical tags support a clear architecture.

That means:

consistent internal linking
proper redirects
clean URL structure
accurate XML sitemaps
predictable navigation

Canonical tags work best when they reinforce existing signals rather than attempting to override them.

One thing I've learned from technical SEO projects is that search engines generally prefer clarity over cleverness.

Whenever a website requires a complicated explanation of why a canonical tag points somewhere unusual, there's a good chance the underlying structure could be simplified.

In many cases, the best technical SEO solution isn't adding another rule.

It's removing the reason that rule became necessary in the first place.

The Real Goal

Canonical tags are not magic.

They don't remove duplicate content.

They don't automatically fix indexing problems.

And they certainly don't replace good site architecture.

Their job is much simpler:

to help search engines understand which URL represents the preferred version of a page.

When used correctly, they reduce ambiguity.

And reducing ambiguity is often what technical SEO is really about.

Final Thought

Many SEO discussions focus on tactics.

Canonical tags, redirects, structured data, XML sitemaps.

But in practice, most technical SEO problems are really architecture problems.

The cleaner your website structure becomes, the less you need to rely on technical workarounds.

Canonical tags are valuable.

Just not for the reasons many people think.

The best canonical tag is usually the one nobody has to think about.

Because it sits inside a website with a clean structure, clear signals, and no unnecessary complexity.

And in both web development and SEO, that is often the hardest thing to achieve.

About the Author

I work with WordPress, SEO, UX, and website performance, helping businesses build websites that are easier for both users and search engines to understand.

Learn more about canonical URL issues and practical examples:

https://pbb.design/en/blog/dev/canonical-url-not-working-10-reasons/

Most Dental Clinic Websites Focus on Design Instead of Trust

Bohdan Prytulyak — Mon, 25 May 2026 12:07:43 +0000

Modern dental clinic websites often look impressive.

Large hero sections.

Beautiful animations.

Minimalist layouts.

Perfect white smiles everywhere.

And yet many of them still feel strangely unconvincing.

Not because the design is bad.

But because the website focuses more on looking modern than making patients feel comfortable.

And in healthcare, that difference matters a lot.

🚨 A Dental Clinic Website Is Not a Typical Business Website

Most industries can get away with generic modern design trends.

Dental clinics usually can’t.

People visit these websites differently.

They are often:

anxious
uncertain
comparing options quickly
looking for reassurance before booking

A patient searching for a dentist is not thinking:

“Wow, this animation is smooth.”

They are thinking:

“Can I trust this clinic?”
“Will this be expensive?”
“Are these doctors experienced?”
“Can I book quickly from my phone?”

That changes everything about how the website should work.

🔍 The Problem With “Premium” Dental Website Templates

Many dental websites today follow the same formula:

large stock photos
oversized typography
huge empty spaces
hidden navigation
generic marketing phrases

Technically, the websites look modern.

But emotionally, they often feel cold and interchangeable.

And users notice that immediately.

Especially when every clinic starts looking exactly the same.

⚠️ Trust Matters More Than Visual Perfection

One thing I keep seeing in real projects:

Patients don’t need the “most creative” website.

They need confidence.

That confidence usually comes from very practical things:

clear doctor information
real clinic photos
understandable services
transparent contact options
simple navigation
easy mobile experience

Oddly enough, small trust signals often matter more than expensive visual effects.

⚠️ Mobile UX Is Usually Worse Than Clinics Think

This is especially important for dental clinics.

A huge percentage of visitors come from mobile devices.

Sometimes:

during a work break
while commuting
when urgently looking for treatment

And this is where many websites struggle.

Common problems:

oversized headers
popups covering content
difficult appointment forms
endless scrolling
tiny buttons
slow-loading galleries

Nothing feels “broken”.

But the experience becomes tiring very quickly.

And users quietly leave.

⚠️ Too Much Information Creates Friction

Another common issue:
trying to explain everything at once.

Some clinic websites overload the homepage with:

dozens of services
large text blocks
multiple CTAs
sliders
promotions
animations

Instead of helping users make decisions, the website creates cognitive overload.

Most patients don’t want to study a dental clinic website.

They want quick clarity:

where the clinic is
what services are offered
whether the clinic feels trustworthy
how to book

That’s it.

🧠 Good Healthcare UX Feels Calm

The best dental clinic websites often feel surprisingly simple.

Not empty.

Not primitive.

Just calm.

The structure feels predictable.

Navigation feels easy.

Information feels organized.

Users don’t have to “fight” the interface.

And that emotional comfort matters more than many businesses realize.

Especially in healthcare.

🛠️ What Actually Improves Dental Clinic Websites

From experience, the biggest improvements often come from simplification.

✅ Clear first-screen messaging

Users should immediately understand:

what the clinic does
where it is located
how to book
why they should trust it

Without searching.

✅ Real photos instead of stock perfection

Authenticity matters.

Real doctors and real clinic interiors build trust much faster than generic smiling models.

✅ Mobile-first thinking

Not just responsive layouts.

Real mobile usability:

simple buttons
fast contact options
readable text
comfortable scrolling

✅ Better structure, not more blocks

Many websites improve when unnecessary sections are removed.

Less noise.

Clearer focus.

Better hierarchy.

✅ Faster access to action

Patients should never struggle to:

call
message
book an appointment

Reducing hesitation is often more important than adding features.

⚡ A Pattern I See Repeatedly

The most successful healthcare websites are rarely the most “creative”.

Usually, they simply:

feel trustworthy
reduce anxiety
guide users clearly
remove friction

And in practice, that often improves conversion rates more than redesign trends or visual effects.

🎯 Final Thought

A dental clinic website is not just a digital brochure.

It’s part of the patient experience.

And patients don’t remember:

animations
gradients
trendy layouts

They remember how the website made them feel.

Confused?

Overwhelmed?

Or comfortable enough to take the next step?

That difference matters more than most design trends in 2026.

👋 About the author

I work with WordPress, UX, SEO, and website performance — helping businesses build websites that are not only visually modern, but easier to use and better at converting visitors into customers.

More about this topic:
https://pbb.design/en/blog/dev/dental-clinic-websites-in-2026/

Your Website Doesn’t Need More Features — It Needs Less Friction

Bohdan Prytulyak — Thu, 21 May 2026 08:55:25 +0000

Modern websites are overloaded.

Not broken.

Not slow.

Not outdated.

Just overloaded.

More sections. More animations. More popups. More sliders. More integrations. More “engagement tools”.

And somehow, despite all of that, many websites still struggle with the one thing that actually matters:

👉 helping users take action.

I’ve worked on websites for years — WordPress projects, WooCommerce stores, service websites, SEO optimization, performance fixes. And the same pattern appears again and again.

Most websites don’t fail because they lack functionality.

They fail because users get tired before they reach the point of conversion.

The Problem Isn’t Missing Features

When business owners feel that a website underperforms, the first instinct is usually:

“We need to add something.”

So the site gets:

another popup
another slider
another CTA
another plugin
another fancy section

At first, it feels productive.

But over time, the website slowly turns into a collection of competing elements — all fighting for attention at the same time.

And users feel that chaos instantly.

Even if they can’t explain it.

Friction Is Often Invisible

This is what makes UX problems dangerous.

Most website owners don’t notice them because technically everything “works”.

The menu works.

Buttons work.

Forms work.

But the experience still feels tiring.

That’s friction.

And online, even small friction matters.

Too Many Choices = No Action

One of the most common issues I see is overcomplication.

For example:

too many menu items
multiple competing buttons
long blocks of text above the actual offer
homepage sections trying to explain everything at once

Instead of guiding users, the website overwhelms them.

People don’t want to study a website.

They want clarity.

The Mobile Experience Gets Worse First

This becomes especially obvious on mobile.

A desktop layout that feels “rich” often becomes exhausting on a phone.

You’ve probably seen websites where:

popups cover content
sticky elements fight for space
sliders take half the screen
buttons are hard to tap
pages feel endless

Technically, nothing is broken.

But the experience feels heavy.

And users leave quietly.

More Features Often Mean More Confusion

There’s also a hidden technical side to this problem.

Every new feature introduces:

more logic
more UI elements
more edge cases
more maintenance

Over time, websites stop feeling intentional.

Instead, they become a timeline of past decisions:

“Let’s add this too.”

And eventually:

the interface loses hierarchy
important actions become less visible
users stop knowing where to focus

Good UX Often Feels Simpler Than Expected

Interestingly, the websites that convert best are not always the most impressive.

Very often, they simply:

explain things clearly
reduce hesitation
remove distractions
guide attention naturally

Good UX rarely screams:

“Look how advanced this website is.”

Instead, users feel:

“This is easy.”

And that feeling matters more than most design trends.

What Reducing Friction Actually Looks Like

In practice, improving UX is often less about adding and more about removing.

Simplify the first screen

Users should immediately understand:

what you do
who it’s for
what action to take next

Not after scrolling.

Not after reading five sections.

Immediately.

Reduce competing elements

If everything is highlighted, nothing stands out.

Clear hierarchy matters:

one primary CTA
one clear direction
one main message

Make mobile feel effortless

Not “responsive”.

Effortless.

Test the website like a normal user:

with one hand
under sunlight
while scrolling quickly

You’ll notice friction immediately.

Remove unnecessary steps

Every extra click, popup, or decision reduces momentum.

Sometimes improving conversion is as simple as:

shortening a form
simplifying navigation
removing one distracting block

Focus on confidence, not effects

Animations and visual effects can help.

But clarity and trust matter more.

Users don’t convert because a transition looked smooth.

They convert because they feel comfortable moving forward.

A Real Pattern I Keep Seeing

Some of the best-performing improvements I’ve seen were surprisingly small.

Not full redesigns.

Just:

cleaner structure
better spacing
simpler navigation
clearer messaging
less visual noise

And after that:

users scroll more
forms perform better
conversion rates improve

Often without adding a single new feature.

Final Thought

A website doesn’t become better because it does more.

It becomes better when users can move through it without friction.

That’s a huge difference.

Modern web development often focuses on:

features
integrations
complexity
visual trends

But real users usually want something much simpler:

clarity
confidence
ease

Sometimes the best thing you can add to a website…

is less.

👋 About the author

I work with WordPress, SEO, UX, and website performance — helping businesses build websites that are not only technically optimized, but easier to use and better at converting visitors into customers.

More about my work: https://pbb.design

PageSpeed Is Lying to You - And Your Users Know It

Bohdan Prytulyak — Fri, 01 May 2026 13:39:59 +0000

A fast website doesn’t always mean a good website.

I’ve seen this many times in real projects.

PageSpeed score — 90+. Everything looks “optimized”.

But when you check analytics — it tells a different story.

Users still leave.
They don’t scroll.
They don’t convert.

At first, it feels confusing. You did everything “right”.

So why isn’t it working?

The Illusion of a “Fast Website”

Tools like PageSpeed Insights are useful — no doubt.

They help you identify technical issues and improve loading performance.

But here’s the key thing:

They measure how fast your site loads.
Not how comfortable it feels to use.

And those are two very different things.

A website can be technically fast…

and still feel slow, unclear, or even frustrating.

🔍 What PageSpeed Doesn’t Tell You

PageSpeed gives you numbers.

But it doesn’t answer simple human questions like:

“Do I understand what this website is about?”
“Do I know what to do next?”
“Do I trust this page?”

Users don’t think in metrics.

They react in seconds — often without even realizing why.

1. Fast Load — But No Clear Value

Imagine this:

A page loads in under 2 seconds.
Everything is technically perfect.

But the first screen shows:

a vague headline
a generic background
no clear direction

At that moment, users don’t analyze.

They just leave.

Because nothing immediately tells them: “This is for you. Stay.”

2. Good Score — But Poor UX

Sometimes websites are “too clean”.

Plenty of whitespace. Minimal design. Everything aligned.

Looks modern.

But:

key information is not visible
the eye doesn’t know where to go
nothing stands out

And that creates friction.

Not the kind you notice in tools —

but the kind users feel.

3. Mobile Experience Is Ignored

This is one of the most common issues I see.

On desktop, everything looks fine.

PageSpeed score is high.

But real users?

They’re on mobile.

And on mobile:

buttons feel too small
text is harder to scan
sections feel cramped or слишком long

Even small неудобства add up quickly.

And users leave without thinking twice.

4. Speed Without Trust

Let’s say your site loads instantly.

Great.

But does it feel trustworthy?

If users don’t see:

real photos
clear contact info
reviews or proof

They hesitate.

And hesitation online usually means one thing:

👉 exit.

5. Technical Metrics ≠ Business Results

This is where many projects get stuck.

You improve:

LCP
CLS
TTFB

You see green scores.

But behavior doesn’t change.

Because performance alone doesn’t solve:

unclear messaging
weak structure
lack of direction

👉 Users don’t care about metrics.

👉 They care about clarity.

What Actually Matters

Instead of asking: “Is my website fast enough?”

Try asking: “Does my website make sense instantly?”

Because in most cases, users decide in a few seconds:

stay
or leave

Practical Fixes That Work

From experience, improvements don’t come from one big change.

They come from small, focused adjustments.

✅ 1. Show value immediately

The first screen should answer:

what you do
who it’s for
why it matters

Not perfectly. Just clearly.

✅ 2. Fix visual hierarchy

Users don’t read — they scan.

Help them:

structure content
highlight important parts
guide their attention

✅ 3. Optimize for mobile first

Not as a “fallback”, but as the main experience.

Test on a real phone.

Scroll. Click. Feel it.

You’ll notice things no tool will show.

✅ 4. Add trust signals

Speed gets attention.

Trust gets conversions.

Even simple things help:

real images
testimonials
visible contact info

✅ 5. Think beyond metrics

Numbers are useful.

But behavior is more important.

Use:

session recordings
heatmaps
real feedback.

That’s where the real insights are.

Real Example

I worked on a WordPress site that looked perfect on paper.

PageSpeed: 90+

Core Web Vitals: passed

But users weren’t engaging.

After a quick review, the issue became obvious:

unclear first screen
weak call to action
too much “empty” design

We didn’t rebuild the site.

We just adjusted:

structure
messaging
focus

PageSpeed barely changed. Conversions improved.

Final Thought

PageSpeed matters. But it’s not the goal. It’s just one piece of the puzzle. A good website is not just fast.

It’s:

clear
easy to understand
comfortable to use
and trustworthy

👋 About the author

I work with WordPress, SEO, and performance optimization — helping businesses build websites that not only load fast, but actually convert.

More about my work: [https://pbb.design/en/]

What do you think?

Have you ever had a “fast” website that still didn’t perform?

What was the real issue?

How to Use ChatGPT Effectively without Losing your Developer Skills

Bohdan Prytulyak — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:40:14 +0000

You access ChatGPT more frequently than Atom. You request a neural network to create a sorting function that you have implemented countless times before. Your response appears to be copied and pasted without any consideration for its content. Does that ring a bell? Congratulations! You are not alone. It is a widespread issue. Today, we will explore how to utilize ChatGPT effectively while maintaining our identity as developers, rather than merely relying on code-pasting.

Phases of deterioration

Phase 1: "I'm merely conserving time."

You are requesting ChatGPT to create a straightforward function. Alright, that seems unproductive. Satisfactory.

Phase 2: "Why should we remember?" one might inquire.

You have forgotten the distinction between map and forEach. You seem to have overlooked how this functions in JavaScript. But why not—surely you can inquire?

Phase 3: "As an architect, my focus is not on writing code."

You are replicating complete elements from ChatGPT. You lack comprehension of their actions. However, they are effective. Nearly there...

Phase 4: "Can it be done without a code?"

A neural network is prompted to generate code, followed by an explanation of its output, and subsequently, the code is debugged. As a project manager, your focus is on a singular function within the project.

Phase 5: You seem to have overlooked the steps for creating a new file in the terminal.

You are no longer a developer.
What actions to take

This is a collection of effective guidelines.

Before initiating a conversation with a neural network, consider crafting a solution on your own first. For a minimum of 15 minutes. Regardless of whether the code is flawed or fails to compile. The key takeaway is that you are engaging your mind. You are remembering syntax, patterns, and logic. ChatGPT will then highlight your mistakes—and that will be significantly more beneficial than just getting a pre-made answer.

“Please provide an authorization function.” - that’s not correct. “Here is my authorization function.” What seems to be the issue? What vulnerabilities exist?" — this is the approach to engaging with a neural network.

Can you sense the change? In the initial scenario, you are a consumer. In the second scenario, you are a developer utilizing a tool for expansion. It's akin to the contrast between an individual who opts for food delivery and another who prepares their own meal while seeking guidance from the chef.

The most effective prompt isn't "write me..." but rather "explain to me how... works." Once you grasp the concept, you'll be able to write the code independently. Copying and pasting code means you haven't grasped the concepts; you've merely postponed the issue for your future self to deal with.

Did you receive the code from ChatGPT? Wonderful. Please close the chat and recreate this code from memory. Refrain from copying and pasting—rephrase it instead. This compels your mind to engage with the information, rather than allowing it to flow aimlessly from one point to another.

It is unnecessary to completely dismiss neural networks as a matter of principle. It's akin to abandoning a calculator out of fear that I might forget my multiplication tables. This is where AI stands out as a remarkably effective tool:

Create a configuration, produce template code—tasks that demand little mental effort yet consume a significant amount of time.

Are you exploring a new framework? ChatGPT serves as a personal mentor, always ready to clarify concepts, no matter how many times it takes.

"Here’s my code, here’s the error, here’s what I tried" - and GPT can truly assist you in identifying the issue more quickly than spending an hour searching online.

Engaging with 100 articles, viewing 50 videos, and posing 1,000 questions to ChatGPT is valuable, yet without the act of writing code yourself, personal growth will remain stagnant. It's akin to perusing literature on swimming without ever stepping into the water.

In conclusion

ChatGPT is an excellent resource. A tool wielded by a master differs greatly from one handled by someone lacking knowledge. Achieve mastery.

At what stage of degradation do you find yourself? Please share your thoughts in the comments.