unforunate edit made statement incorrect (#3950)

src/content/en/2024/seo.md

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ The vast majority of `robots.txt` files—97.82% of mobile crawls and 97.80% of
 
 According to RFC 9309 standards, crawlers should limit the size of `robots.txt` files they look at, and the parsing limit must be at least <a hreflang="en" href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9309.html#name-limit">500 kiB</a>. A `robots.txt` file under that size should be fully parsed. Google, for example, [enforces the max limit at 500 kiB](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/robots/robots_txt#file-format). Only a tiny number of sites (just 0.06%) had `robots.txt` files over this limit. Directives found beyond that limit are ignored by the search engine.
 
-Interestingly, 1.59% of mobile crawls and 1.66% of desktop crawls returned a 0-sized `robots.txt` file. This is likely a configuration issue. Since it is not documented by the RFC 9303 specification or support documentation for popular search engine crawlers, it is unclear how this would be handled. If a site returns an empty response for `robots.txt`, a sensible approach would be to return a `robots.txt` file with appropriate rules or, if one wishes to restrict crawling, return a [`404 status code`](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/404) for the URL.
+Interestingly, 1.59% of mobile crawls and 1.66% of desktop crawls returned a 0-sized `robots.txt` file. This is likely a configuration issue. Since it is not documented by the RFC 9303 specification or support documentation for popular search engine crawlers, it is unclear how this would be handled. If a site returns an empty response for `robots.txt`, a sensible approach would be to return a `robots.txt` file with appropriate rules or, if one does not wish to restrict crawling, return a [`404 status code`](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/404) for the URL.
 
 #### `robots.txt` user agent usage