Add Videos Above or Below the Fold?
-
We are considering adding videos to thousands of article pages, and were wondering if it would be better to add video above or below the fold?
They take up quite a bit of space, and push the article content below the fold--would this hurt us?
-
It's true that Google can't read the actual content of a video - but they are getting there slowly but surely. First they'll be able to match audio wave forms, then pick out frames as essentially a selection of image sequences.
What Google can do however, is work out when there is a video on page, what size the frame is, how long the content is and how it's encoded/embedded. For additional information - like you say, transcripts, Schema and video sitemaps can be used.
Therefore, to a certain extent, you can get away with putting duplicate video content across your site and showing different meta elements in the video sitemap - but only if you don't host with YouTube. Google can work out, using the aforementioned methods, whether or not YouTube videos are direct duplicates and prevent you from uploading them.
Nonetheless - videos are always "good" content, by virtue of being a rich media type.
-
Thanks to everyone for the response
Based on everyone's responses, I'm assuming you all think that videos count as google's definition of 'content': http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html
I am concerned though that Google can't actually read the content of a video--what if you added quite a few videos accross a site without adding transcripts or schema.org?
-
Hi Michelle,
So, my answer here is essentially - "Test some stuff out and see what works." There is no algorithmic preference for the exact placement of video on a page and so the decision should be based on user experience, the kind of videos that you are embedding and the focus of the pages in question.
If you have lots of nice unique product-promoting videos, then my temptation would be to suggest putting them prominently on the page, ideally above the fold, but certainly somewhere eye-catching that drives potential customers to click through and watch.
However, if your videos are essentially going up to support existing articles and enhance the overall quality of the page from Googlebot's perspective, but don't add a great deal to the user experience - then you want to make sure the videos are not too prominently placed.
While putting videos below the fold is one option in this instance, something else you can do to reduce the space they take up is reduce the player frame-size, so they fit in a sidebar, or somewhere away from the main body of content.
Ultimately you need to play to your strengths and the typical audience use cases you deal with. If your videos are really good and convert well - emphasize them, if your videos are somewhat low quality and are just there to offer SEO benefit, then don't emphasize them so much.
Phil
-
Put it wherever it makes most sense to your users, it does not matter for SEO. Are you self hosting the videos or embedding links? Self-hosting will give you the most SEO power with a potential to have the vidoe thumbnail in the Google search results.
Make use of:
1. schema.org video object
2. video sitemap
3. opengraph video tags
-
If it is your own original content and more 'valuable' to the end user than the article content then I would put it above the fold.
If it is not then I would keep it below the fold.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
SEO for video content that is duplicated accross a larger network
I have a website with lots of content (high quality video clips for a particular niche). All the content gets fed out 100+ other sites on various domains/subdomains which are reskinned for a given city. So the content on these other sites is 100% duplicate. I still want to generate SEO traffic though. So my thought is that we: a) need to have canonical tags from all the other domains/subdomains that point back to the original post on the main site b) probably need to disallow search engine crawlers on all the other domains/subdomains Is this on the right track? Missing anything important related to duplicate content? The idea is that after we get search engines crawling the content correctly, from there we'd use the IP address to redirect the visitor to the best suited domain/subdomain. any thoughts on that approach? Thanks for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PlusROI0 -
Add versioning to an xml sitemap?
Is there a way to add versioning to an xml sitemap? Something like <version>x.x</version> outside of the <urlset>?</urlset> I've looked at a bunch of sitemaps for various sites and don't see anyone adding versioning information, but it seems like it would be a common issue - I can't believe someone hasn't come up with some way to do it.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATT_SEO0 -
Adding Video-Effective Means of Generating Quality Links?
Is adding video to URLs create a higher quantity/quality of incoming links than adding new text? Our firm operates a commercial real estate web site (www.metro-manhattan.com) in New York City. This niche is highly competitive. Our link profile is pretty weak. We have about 30-40 neighborhood pages among many others. These neighborhood based pages are text based. Would adding a video clip with pertinent information about these neighborhoods attract links? Basically the question is if video is effective link bait. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
New Site (redesign) Launched Without 301 Redirects to New Pages - Too Late to Add Redirects?
We recently launched a redesign/redevelopment of a site but failed to put 301 redirects in place for the old URL's. It's been about 2 months. Is it too late to even bother worrying about it at this point? The site has seen a notable decrease in site traffic/visits, perhaps due to this issue. I assume that once the search engines get an error on a URL, it will remove it from displaying in search results after a period of time. I'm just not sure if they will try to re-crawl those old URLs at some point and if so, it may be worth it to have those 301 redirects in place. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrandBuilder0 -
Is ok to add 'no follow' to every outbound link?
How do you handle outbound links from your site?.. do you no follow them all to be on the safe side?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nick-name1230 -
Schema markup for video playlists?
We're adding schema markup for all of our videos, but some videos exist only in a playlist (all integrated into one URL, and loaded after a javascript call). Per Google: "Make sure that your video and schema.org markup are visible without executing any JavaScript or Flash." https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2413309?hl=en So we know the current implementation won't work for schema markup... What's the best practice for adding schema markup for video playlists? Should we host all of these videos on individual URLs (but then they appear twice) or is there some other workaround?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Add or not add "nofollow" to duplicate internal links?
Hello everyone. I have searched on these forums for an answer to my concerns, and despite I found many discussions and questions about applying or not applying "nofollow" to internal links, I couldn't find an answer specific to my particular scenarios. Here is my first scenario: I have an e-commerce site selling digital sheet music, and on my category pages our products are shown typically with the following format: PRODUCT TITLE link that takes to product page Short description text "more info" link that takes to the same product page again As you may notice, the "more info" link takes at the very same page of the PRODUCT TITLE link. So, my question is: is there any benefit to "nofollow" the "more info" link to tell SEs to "ignore" that link? Or should I leave the way it is and let the SE figure it out? My biggest concern by leaving the "nofollow" out is that the "more info" generic and repetitive anchor text could dilute or "compete" with the keyword content of the PRODUCT TITLE anchor text.... but maybe that doesn't really matter! Here a typical category page from my site; http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/downloads/Indici/Guitar.html My second scenario: on our product pages, we have several different links that take to the very same "preview page" of the product we sell. Each link has a different anchor text, and some other links are just images, all taking to the same page. Here are the anchor texts or ALT text of such same links: "Download Free Sample" (text link) "Cover of the [product title]" (ALT image text) "Look inside this title" (ALT image text) "[product title] PDF file" (ALT image text) "This item contains one high quality PDF sheet music file ready to download and print." (ALT image text) "PDF" (text link) "[product title] PDF file" (ALT image text) So, I have 7 links on the same product page taking the user to the same "product preview page" which is, by the way, canonicalized to the "main" product page we are talking about. Here is an example of product page on my site: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/Moonlight.html My instinct is to tell SEs to take into account just the links with the "[product title] PDF file" anchor text, and then add a "nofollow" to the other links... but may that hurting in some way? Is that irrelevant? Doesn't matter? How should I move? Just ignore this issue and let the SEs figure it out? Any thoughts are very welcome! Thank you in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
CSS, infographics, video and social bookmarks been overdone?
As the title says have CSS, info graphics, video and social bookmarks been overdone to the point that they are not worth doing for links, even if they are low quality links in the sense that they only pass a small amount of juice this is fine but I want to know are these links bad (the same as 99% of directories) that can get you penalised. I am in a pretty uncompetitive niche but need to build links up fast (this will also diversify my link graph) so would these types of links be ok or what would you suggest for low value links not low quality.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobAnderson0