Does using tags instead of " " good for SEO purposes?
-
I'm currently using <pr>tags for paragraphs and came across an article that said it is better for search engines to see the</pr>
tag than
tag to separate paragraphs. -
You can see that from the W3schools article I linked above: "Even if
works in all browsers, writing
instead is more future proof."HTML worked with the idea that certain tags could be opened but did not need to be closed such as the and
tags. The XHTML standard requires all tags be closed. As I understand the idea, it's just a better means of presenting that every tag is closed.Functionally there is currently no difference BUT it can lead to different behaviors in various browsers if you use invalid code.
-
The HTML5+ will in some years (maybe 5-6 yrs) only support
and similiar tags. You can read more about this at http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp -
Whats the difference?
-
I must say that you absolutely should use
instead of- it's more future-friendly.
-
Where did you get this information though?
-
I was just wondering if any one at SEOmoz has ever heard about it because I couldn't find anything else on the subject online. This was a very helpful answer thank you.
-
I have never heard that theory before today. It does make a bit of sense so I decided to Google it. When I typed in "p tag vs" the auto-complete came up with "p tag vs br tag" and I added in "seo" to the search. There were only two related results.
1. http://www.seo-works.com/p-tags-in-seo.php While the article presents an interesting idea, they offer absolutely no references for the discussion at all. The author's name is not listed, no date, etc. This is where I begin to look at the site itself and it seems like a "build your website in 30 minutes" type of creation where I keep the idea (good ideas can come from anywhere) but I lend absolutely no weight to this article as evidence.
2. http://www.pitstopmedia.com/sem/br-hr-p-pre-tag-seo This page isn't that great either, but it is a huge improvement over the other result. We can see an author name "TraiaN" but it is not a link and there is no information about the author. It has a publish date of Nov 2010 which is good.
What bothers me is the information is presented as factual. It is presented in the same was as if I was to say "the sun is hot". Sure the sun is hot. Everyone knows the sun is hot. But I am not willing to accept the theory that p tags are superior to br tags on the same level.
The second site does reference a search patent from 2004 as evidence to support the statement. The particular section of the patent that is referred to only talks about the desire to apply weighting to words near header tags (h1-h6). Never once is the p tag nor br tag mentioned.
These type of articles really muddy the SEO world by presenting one person's theory as a fact. Neither author has presented even one shred of evidence to support this theory. Neither claimed to have worked at Google and seen the algorithm or have performed any testing. There is no evidence whatsoever that either author has any knowledge about SEO. This is the SEO equivalent of snake-oil sales.
Summary: I am not aware of any evidence linking any weighting to text contained within a
tag versus text separated with a
tag. I suggest you use the best programming practices within your site. Follow the W3 industry standards when coding your site and use tags appropriately. -
tag is the proper formatting for paragraphs and will in theory make it easier for search engines to understand your content.
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
-
Understanding Redirects and Canonical Tags in SEO: A Complex Case
Hi everyone, nothing serious here, i'm just playing around doing my experiments 🙂
Technical SEO | | chueneke
but if any1 of you guys understand this chaos and what was the issue here, i'd appreciate if you try to explain it to me. I had a page "Linkaufbau" on my website at https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau. My .htaccess file contains only basic SEO stuff: # removed ".html" using htaccess RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET\ (.*)\.html\ HTTP RewriteRule (.*)\.html$ $1 [R=301,L] # internally added .html if necessary RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME}.html -f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !/$ RewriteRule (.*) $1\.html [L] # removed "index" from directory index pages RewriteRule (.*)/index$ $1/ [R=301,L] # removed trailing "/" if not a directory RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} /$ RewriteRule (.*)/ $1 [R=301,L] # Here’s the first redirect: RedirectPermanent /index / My first three questions: Why do I need this rule? Why must this rule be at the top? Why isn't this handled by mod_rewrite? Now to the interesting part: I moved the Linkaufbau page to the SEO folder: https://chriseo.de/seo/linkaufbau and set up the redirect accordingly: RedirectPermanent /linkaufbau /seo/linkaufbau.html I deleted the old /linkaufbau page. I requested indexing for /seo/linkaufbau in the Google Search Console. Once the page was indexed, I set a canonical to the old URL: <link rel="canonical" href="https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau"> Then I resubmitted the sitemap and requested indexing for /seo/linkaufbau again, even though it was already indexed. Due to the canonical tag, the page quickly disappeared. I then requested indexing for /linkaufbau and /linkaufbau.html in GSC (the old, deleted page). After two days, both URLs were back in the serps:: https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau.html this is the new page /seo/linkaufbau
b14ee095-5c03-40d5-b7fc-57d47cf66e3b-grafik.png This is the old page /linkaufbau
242d5bfd-af7c-4bed-9887-c12a29837d77-grafik.png Both URLs are now in the search results and all rankings are significantly better than before for keywords like: organic linkbuilding linkaufbau kosten linkaufbau service natürlicher linkaufbau hochwertiger linkaufbau organische backlinks linkaufbau strategie linkaufbau agentur Interestingly, both URLs (with and without .html) redirect to the new URL https://chriseo.de/seo/linkaufbau, which in turn has a canonical pointing to https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau (without .html). In the SERPs, when https://chriseo.de/linkaufbau is shown, my new, updated snippet is displayed. When /linkaufbau.html is shown, it displays the old, deleted page that had already disappeared from the index. I have now removed the canonical tag. I don't fully understand the process of what happened and why. If anyone has any ideas, I would be very grateful. Best regards,
Chris0 -
Ranking penalty for "accordion" content -- hidden prior to user interaction
Will content inside an "accordion" module be ranked as non-hidden content? Is there an official guide by google and other search engines addressing this? Example of accordion element: https://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/components/collapse/#accordion-example Will all elements in the example above be seen + treated equally by search engines?
Technical SEO | | houlihanlokey1 -
Are subdomains a good seo strategy for a multistore e-commerce?
Hi there I'm wondering what is the best strategy to work with multi-stores on magento: to use or not to use subdomains? Suppose we have the www.website.com and we configure it to use multistore. The url base will not have the store id on it so it will not be like www.website.com/store1 and www.website.com/store2. It will simply rely on the user session so if we have two categories for each store it will acces using: www.website.com/category1 (for store 1) www.website.com/category2 (for store 2) The homepage will allways be set on www.website.com so we should have a single page for several "home pages" (depending on the user session / store he is accessing). I guess this is not a good option if we want to rank for different keywords (for each store). So I was wondering if it is a good solution to set: store1.website.com store2.website.com This way we have 2 "home pages" each one able to rank. Does it make sense? Is it good or bad for seo? Another option I was considering was: www.website.com (for store 1) store2.website.com (for store 2) store3.website.com (for store 3) www.website.com/blog (for blog) Can this work? Good or bad for seo? best regards
Technical SEO | | qgairsoft0 -
Can i use "nofollow" tag on product page (duplicated content)?
Hi, im working on my webstore SEO. I got descriptions from official seller like "Bosch". I got more than 15.000 items so i cant create unique content for each product. Can i use nofollow tag for each product and create great content on category pages? I dont wanna lose rankings because duplicated content. Thank you for help!
Technical SEO | | pejtupizdo0 -
My site has a "Reported Web Forgery!" warning
When I check my bing cached page it comes up with a "Reported Web Forgery!" warning. I've looked at google web tools and no malware has been detected. I do have another site that has a very similar web address jaaronwoodcountertops.com and jaaron-wood-countertops.com. Could that be why? How do I go about letting bing and or firefox know this is not a forgery site?
Technical SEO | | JAARON0 -
A rel="canonical" to www.homepage.com/home.aspx Hurts my Rank?
Hello, The CMS that I use makes 3 versions of the homepage:
Technical SEO | | EvolveCreative
www.homepage.com/home.aspx homepage.com homepage.com/default.aspx By default the CMS is set to rel=canonical all versions to the www.homepage.com/home.aspx version. If someone were to link to a website they most likely aren't going to link to www.homepage.com/home.aspx, they'll link to www.homepage.com which makes that link juice flow through the canonical to www.homepage.com/home.aspx right? Why make that extra loop at all? Wouldn't that be splitting the juice? I know 301's loose 1-5 % juice, but not sure about canonical. I assume it works the same way? Thanks! http://yoursiteroot/0 -
How important is meta content="" name="title"?
How much meta content="" name="title" impacts rankings? I have right now:
Technical SEO | | tonis
<title>Keyword</title> So my question is, that does this Keyword 2, so called meta title have any impact on rankings?0 -
200 Redirects for SEO instead of 301
We are working with a company on re-platforming our website. On a call yesterday they outlined a strategy to use 200 redirects for our top keywords instead of 301s. I am not familiar with this type of redirect and was wondering if anyone could provide some more insight.
Technical SEO | | EvergladesDirect0