Header Tag Question
-
While reviewing code on a site, I found the following:
<h1 class="<a class="attribute-value">logo</a>"> <a id="<a class="attribute-value">logo</a>" href="[http://siteexampleh1.com](view-source:http://dmbinc.com/)"><span>Example of most important content on this page- Companyspan>a> h1>Is this the correct way to place code for an h1 tag? The content is cached within the page and is hidden to the viewer. The content that is assigned as the h1, is a logo. Majority of code I have been reviewing does not use this setup. The code would instead read as (
This is heading 1
). Can anyone provide insights on this?
Thanks!
-
I agree with Garrett in that I would use the H1 tag to mark up a heading (e.g., an article title, not a link or image.) H1, H2, H3 tags (and so forth) are (textual) header tags, after all, by definition, and are meant to help crawlers understand how pages are organized. They are also very important in helping screen readers (often used by the visually impaired) understand how a page is organized. Not properly marking up pages can result in a very frustrating, and confusing experience for those who rely on screen readers to navigate the web. The WC3 explains how to mark up textual content in HTML very well.
While including the keyword in the H1 tag has little, if any value in terms of SEO, I think including it is good for usability -- for all users, not just those that use screen readers. When a user performs a keyword search, the search results show the keyword in the page titles. I think it confirms (for the user) that they are on the correct page (and have found what they are looking for) when one of the first things they see after clicking through to a page (from a search result) is a prominent headline containing the keyword in it.
-
You need the H1 to be visible for it to "count" - sure, you've got text here, but it's being hidden by the CSS, which is replacing that text with your image file.
You'd be much better off with a visible H1 headline containing text AND with your logo image being embedded with a standard image embed tag that ALSO has alt text for that image.
-
Hmmmm.
I wouldn't make an H1 tag a logo. I also wouldn't make the h1 tag a link. The h1 tag is one of the most important on page factors for targeting a keyword.
My suggestion would be to follow the example you gave in the paragraph,
This is a heading
Hope this helps,
~Garret
-
Hmmmm.
I wouldn't make an H1 tag a logo. I also wouldn't make the h1 tag a link. The h1 tag is one of the most important on page factors for targeting a keyword.
My suggestion would be to follow the example you gave in the paragraph,
This is a heading
Hope this helps,
~Garret
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
-
NoIndex tag, canonical tag or automatically generated H1's for automatically generated enquiry pages?
What would be better for automatically generated accommodation enquiry pages for a travel company? NoIndex tag, canonical tag, automatically generated H1's or another solution? This is the homepage: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/ You would enquire from a page like this: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/accommodation/sunshine-coast/twin-waters/the-sebel-twin-waters This is the enquiry form: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/accommodation-enquiry.php?name=The+Sebel+Twin+Waters®ion_name=Sunshine+Coast
Technical SEO | | Kim_Lazaro0 -
Non-standard HTML tags in content
I had coded my website's article content with a non-standard tag <cnt>that surrounded other standard tags that contained the article content, I.e.</cnt> , . The whole text was enclosed in a div that used Schema.org markup to identify the contents of the div as the articleBody. When looking at scraped data for stories in Webmaster Tools, the content of the story was there and identified as the articleBody correctly. It's recently been suggested by someone else that the presence of the non-standard <cnt>tags were actually making the content of the article uncrawlable by the Googlebot, this effectively rendering the content invisible. I did not believe this to be true, since the content appeared to be correctly indexed in Webmaster Tools, but for the sake of a test I agreed to removing them. In the last 6 weeks since they were removed, there have been no changes in impressions or traffic from organic search, which leads me to believe that the removal of the <cnt>tags actually had no effect, since the content was already being indexed successfully and nothing else has changed.</cnt></cnt> My question is whether or not an encapsulating non-standard tag as I've described would actually make the content invisible to Googlebot, or if it should not have made any difference so long as the correct Schema.org markup was in place? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | dlindsey0 -
Rel=canonical on landing page question
Currently we have two versions of a category page on our site (listed below) Version A: www.example.com/category • lives only in the SERPS but does not live on our site navigation • has links • user experience is not the best Version B: www.example.com/category?view=all • lives in our site navigation • has a rel=canonical to version A • very few links and doesn’t appear in the SERPS • user experience is better than version A Because the user experience of version B is better than version A I want to take out the rel=canonical in version B to version A and instead put a rel=canonical to version B in version A. If I do this will version B show up in the SERPS eventually and replace version A? If so, how long do you think this would take? Will this essentially pass page rank from version A to version B
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Specific Domain Migration Question
My company will be taking over an ecommerce site that is built to get local city/state traffic where the competition is slim to none for the given keyword. This site gets 2500+ visits per day, and we're looking to maintain and eventually grow that traffic. We would like to move that site onto our ecommerce platform which will force URL change and of every 'keyword' city/state page on the site. We're undecided whether to keep it on an unfamiliar platform that already gets traffic or to move it and possibly face the 404's or weeks of redirecting a single keyword-city/state page to another. Any advice or insight would be great!
Technical SEO | | BMac540 -
Questionable SEO
Chess Telecom appears first when you search for 'business phone lines' in the UK so I used a campaign to check them out. It seems they've got tons of unrelated links and using comment spamming to increase their ranking. Along with fake twitter accounts and other things. Search for 'jewel jubic chess' and you'll see what i mean. I assumed this wasnt a good idea and been trying to get my link on relevant websites only. Any comments or suggestions? Should I simply trust that google will hopefully punish them eventually? Or should I be fighting fire with fire? Thanks Dan
Technical SEO | | DanFromUK0 -
Canonical tags/wordpress permalink question
Need help: Do canonical tags do the exact same thing that wordpress already does with it’s permalink function? Or are these 2 separate things? thank you.
Technical SEO | | bonnierSEO1 -
Yoast canonical SEO question
Hi I've installed Yoasts SEO plugin. I've just set it up as a campaign in SEOMOZ pro and i now see 14 notices about rel=canonical. I haven't added the rel=canonical myself and is in connection with the Yoast code on the site. Why does it do that and should i do something about it?
Technical SEO | | infocell0 -
URL rewrite question
I have adjusted a setting in my CMS and the URL's have changed from http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section.php/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing to http://www.ensorbuilding.com/section/43/1/firestone-epdm-rubbercover-flat-roofing This has changed all the URL's on the website not just this example. As you can see , the .php extension has now been removed but people can still access the .php version of the page. What I want is a site-wide 301 redirect but can not figure out how to implement it? Any help is appreciated 🙂 Thanks
Technical SEO | | danielmckay70