Legitimate hidden text and H1s are "OK?" Show me the data!
-
I'm trying to promote the SEO perspective during a site redesign so I'm researching the impact of design requests:
-
Embedding text in graphic headers and applying
to the graphics to get the SEO value
-
Reducing view-able text on a page for design reasons and by using JavaScript to hide text in accordions or tabs.
SEOmoz uses these techniques on their ranking report and most of what I read in teh forums says it is OK to hide text if your motives are pure and the text displays in a text-only browser.
But I do SEO, not SEOK. I want to optimize, not just avoid penalties. And I try to make decisions based on data, not just anecdotes. Are there any studies out there on the effects these hidden-text topics?
How much difference DOES it make to have the text exposed? Since there is potential for spam with these techniques, why would Google give the same rank to pages with and without hidden text? When I'm balancing UX and SEO, I want to clearly define the trade-off.
What have you done when faced with this dilemma?
-
-
oh... those pages with the hidden text on Google properties....
I hate those pages. Hate them. Hate them.
They usually have trivial content too. A whole page with a few sentences and you have to view 15 pages to get the information that you need.
They should be smacked by panda.
Did I say that I really dislike those pages.
-
Thanks EGOL. It is good to have an example of the accordion technique hurting traffic. This is becoming so common I'm surprised there isn't more out about it. Interestingly, Google itself uses hidden text extensively in its Chromebook site, look at the content behind the tiles further down on the How It's Different page. And I frequently see
applied to images as is done on the carousel for Isite design. Is it just that they are counting on other factors?
I'd sure like to see an exhaustive study on this. (SEOmoz, this is your cue to jump in with data already out there or to take this research on!)
-
Luke, here is the story....
I had a big FAQ page that was really long. I wanted to organize it with an accordion page. When people landed on the page they were instrucuted to "click a topic" and the accordion would open - when it opened all of the questions about a single topic were displayed.
When I installed the accordion page the words on the page changed very little but traffic into that page from google dropped by 80%.
So, I removed the accordion and placed topic links in large font at the top of the page. when people enter they were still instructed to "click a topic". The visitor was then moved down the page where questions about that topic were presented.
After changing that traffic from google search jumped back up. Visitor engagement remained about the same - pageviews and time on site is about the same.
-
Thanks EGOL, this is an interesting piece of anecdotal evidence for me.
I have been wondering along the same lines as the OP - specifically because I'm a little concerned that Google is parsing javascript now (in some cases) and may be iffy about javascript copy truncation. However, I would view this in my own case, as a user experience improvement.
For example : I sometimes use javascript to truncate my copy where I feel it may push other content too far down the page. Some users will want to read the whole passage, but others will be scanning for the content further down.
Is this the type of 'hidden text' you are referring to? The full content is easily accessible at the click of a 'show more' link. The content is hidden by the javascript, so will be available to user agents that do not execute javascript.
-
I could not agree more with EGOL. Text on a web page should appear as text, not within images. With CSS3 and current design standards, there is rarely a reason to do otherwise.
About the only place on a site where I permit text within an image is within the logo.
I am not aware of even the slightest SEO value from applying a header tag to a graphic.
-
"Embedding text in graphic headers and applying
to the graphics to get the SEO value"
I want as much text as possible on the page. Every diverse word pulls in longtail traffic.
And... applying
to a graphic for SEO value? Why do you think that will work? Just use text.
"Reducing view-able text on a page for design reasons and by using JavaScript to hide text in accordions or tabs."
Any time I have done this the SEO value of the text is lost. That's what my analytics tells me from lost long tail traffic.
If a designer told me that he needed to hide text for design purposes. I would challenge him to find a way to put the text on the page and make it look great. If he was not up to that challenge I would have a new designer.
Others might disagree. That's OK.
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
-
Fetch as Google not showing Waypoints.js on scroll animation
So I noticed that my main content underneath 4 reasons to choose LED Habitats did not show up in Fetch as Google as well as a few other sections. The site being brand new, so I'm not sure how this will be indexed. What happens is, as the user scrolls the content is brought in using Waypoints and Animate.css which offers an engaging yet simple user experience. I'm just afraid that If the content doesn't show up in "Fetch as Google" in webmaster tools that this content will never be found / indexed by Google. There are thousands of sites that use this library, I'm just curious what I'm doing wrong.. or what I can do. Is there a way for me to keep the simple animations but keep Google Happy at the same time? I took a screen shot of "Fetch as Google" and you can see blatant missing sections which are the sections animated by the waypoints library. Thanks for listening! Robert ZqgLWHi
Web Design | | swarming0 -
404's and a drop in Rank - Site maps? Data Highlighter?
I managed an old (2006 design) ticket site that was hosted and run by the same company that handled our point of sale. (Think, really crappy, customer had to click through three pages to get to the tickets, etc.) In Mid February, we migrated that old site to a new, more powerful site, built by a company that handles sites exclusively for ticket brokers. (My site: TheTicketKing. - dot - com) Before migration, I set up 301's for all the pages that we had currently ranked for, and had inbound links pointing to, etc. The CMS allowed me to set every one of those landing pages up with fresh content, so I created unique content for all of them, ran them through the Moz grader before launch, etc. We launched the site in Mid February, and it seemed like Google responded well. All the pages that we had 301's set up for stayed up fairly well in rank, and some even reached higher positions, while some took a few weeks to get back up to where they were before. Google was also giving us an average of 8-10K impressions per day, compared to 3000 per day with the old site. I started to notice a slow drop in impressions in mid April (after two months of love from Google,) and we lost rank on all our non branded pages around 4/23. Our branded terms are still fine, we didn't get a message from Google, and I reached out to the company that manages our site, asking if they had any issues with their other clients. They suggested that I resubmit our sitemaps. I did, and saw everything bump back up (impressions and rank) for just one week. Now we're back in the basement with all the non branded terms once again. I realize that Google could have penalized us without giving us a message, but what got me somewhat optimistic was the fact that resubmitting our sitemaps did bring us back up for around a week. One other thing that I was working on with the site just before the drop was Google's data highlighter. I submitted a set of pages that now come back with errors, after Google seemed to be fine with the data set before I submitted it. So now I'm looking at over 300 data highlighter errors when I'm in WMT. I deleted that set, but I still get the error listings in WMT, as if Google is still trying to understand those pages. Would that have an effect on our rank? Finally I do see that our 404's have risen steadily since the migration, to over 1000 now, and the people who manage the CMS tell me that it would have no effect on rank overall. And we're going to continue to get 404's as the nature of a ticket site would dictate? (Not sure on that, but that's what I was told.) Would anyone care to chime in on these thoughts, or any other clues as to my drop?
Web Design | | Ticket_King0 -
Is it cloaking/hiding text if textual content is no longer accessible for mobile visitors on responsive webpages?
My company is implementing a responsive design for our website to better serve our mobile customers. However, when I reviewed the wireframes of the work our development company is doing, it became clear to me that, for many of our pages, large parts of the textual content on the page, and most of our sidebar links, would no longer be accessible to a visitor using a mobile device. The content will still be indexable, but hidden from users using media queries. There would be no access point for a user to view much of the content on the page that's making it rank. This is not my understanding of best practices around responsive design. My interpretation of Google's guidelines on responsive design is that all of the content is served to both users and search engines, but displayed in a more accessible way to a user depending on their mobile device. For example, Wikipedia pages have introductory content, but hide most of the detailed info in tabs. All of the information is still there and accessible to a user...but you don't have to scroll through as much to get to what you want. To me, what our development company is proposing fits the definition of cloaking and/or hiding text and links - we'd be making available different content to search engines than users, and it seems to me that there's considerable risk to their interpretation of responsive design. I'm wondering what other people in the Moz community think about this - and whether anyone out there has any experience to share about inaccessable content on responsive webpages, and the SEO impact of this. Thank you!
Web Design | | mmewdell0 -
Web Editing Pricing Quote
Hi all, I cannot seem to get my pagespeed up to the level I want, but I do not have the backend knowledge to fix the following errors listed below. I have played around with this for awhile, and gotten a number of them reduced, but these last ones are beyond me at this time. Any idea how long this would take someone proficient to do? Any idea what the cost would be? I know the ideas are going to be super general, but ball park is what I'm looking for. Thanks! Ruben Remove render-blocking JavaScript: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.min.js http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/themes/kempruge/scripts/custom.js http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/themes/kempruge/scripts/rem-text-input.js Optimize CSS Delivery of the following: http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/themes/kempruge/style.css http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/themes/kempruge/fonts/stylesheet.css http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/sweetcaptcha-revolutionary-free-captcha-service/css/style.css?ver=3.6.1 http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/nextgen-gallery/products/photocrati_nextgen/modules/nextgen_gallery_display/static/nextgen_gallery_related_images.css?ver=3.6.1 http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/includes/css/styles.css?ver=3.5.3 http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/easing-slider/css/slideshow.min.css?ver=2.1.2 http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-nivo-slider/nivo-slider.css?ver=3.6.1 http://www.kempruge.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-nivo-slider/themes/default/default.css?ver=3.6.1
Web Design | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
How keywords per page to keep from being "spammy"?
Hi all, I am currently doing a marketing internship for a B2B company that does all sorts of out-sourced recruiting work. I have some experience with SEO, but not completely confident. My first question is, I know Google sees websites that load up on keywords as "spammy", so what is the appropriate number of keywords per page? Currently, I was thinking about this setup: 1 keyword for the URL 1 keyword per alt tag (1 per page, at most) 2 keywords per each title tag (approximately 4 pages that I am going to follow internally, not following the "about us" page). After that, I was thinking of adding 2-3 more keywords in each meta description and 2-3 in the body copy. That would equate to 6-8 keywords on each page, is this too many and should keywords be repeated (on the same page or across multiple pages)? Since this website is brand new (zero links), would it make sense to nofollow all of the internal links so that they homepage can gain ranking as quickly as possible within Google?
Web Design | | wlw20090 -
Text in Images vs. Alt tags
Hi on my homepage i h ave multiple images They have the appropriate alt text for each image, but the text which the image displays is not written into the page and styled using CSS rather than placing text within an image. Is this a issue worth correcting, or is it sufficient to have just alt text for each image. Any major pros from having putting the text in the image into the CMS using appropriate CSS styling to achieve the same effect.
Web Design | | monster990 -
Duplicate H1 tag IF it holds SAME text?
Hello people, I know that majority of SEO gurus (?) claim that H1 tag should only be used once per page. In the landing page design I'm working with, we actually need to repeat our core message stated in H1 & H2 - at the bottom of the page. Now the question is: Can that in any way cause any ranking penalty from big G? In my eyes that is not attempt to over optimize page as it contains SAME info as the H1 & H2 at the top of the page. Confusing, so I'm hope that some SEO gurus here will share some light on this. Thanks in advance!
Web Design | | RetroOnline0 -
Is it OK to 301 Redirect http://homepage.com to http://blog.homepage.com?
I don't have a homepage built yet, and I suspect that my blog will be my primary SEO draw in the long term, so I'd like to do a 301 redirect (for the techies, I'm doing it in Django with http.HttpResponsePermanentRedirect ) I just wanted to confirm that this wouldn't cause any problems as Google gets used to my page (it's only been up for a few days) Thanks! -matt
Web Design | | 49wetnoodles0