Will having image lightbox with content on a web page SEO friendly?
-
This website is done in CMS. Will having lightbox pop up with content be SEO friendly?
If you go to the web page and click on the images at the bottom of the page. There are lightbox that will display information. Will these lightbox content information be crawl by Google? Will it be consider as content for the url http://jennlee.com/portfolio/bran..
Thanks,
John
-
Hi Dale,
Really stupid question, how do I look at the CSS to identify that? I've viewed source but cant see that information anywhere on the page.
If you wouldn't mind, could you point me in the right direction of some information about this issue, I would be interested in understanding it better, but until you brought it to my attention, I had no idea even to look for it
J
-
Ryan and James,
Take a closer look at the div class of the lightbox (class="contact"). In the CSS for the page in question we find the following:
div.contact {
display: none;
visibility: hidden;}
In my opinion, you're asking the wrong question. This isn't about lightboxes or DA at all; it's about the display:none; and visibility: hidden; elements.
There is no shortage of information about that here on SEOmoz or in the Google Webmaster Forums.
-
Interesting supposition. i've got absolutely no idea if a stronger page changes the specific parts of a page are parsed.
Shouldn't be too difficult to work out though:
If we work on the logic that an exact match search result indicates that the text is being read and used by google, you can then compare javascript parsing across strong and weak pages.
Another way would be to look at the cached text only version across pages and see if there is any difference, although I think I prefer the first suggestion
Seems simple, although it probably isn't
j
-
I agree with your assessment James.
Before I accept this information I would like to ask if you are aware of any other similar examples of lightbox use on a page with better stats? The DA of this page is only 31, and PA is 1. I would like to rule out the idea Google may crawl deeper if the page was deemed more important.
-
James is correct. Your lightbox content is not visible to a Google Bot.
You can see from an exact match search of some text from the page that Google has indexed the visible text: http://bit.ly/nDQLlM
The only place that the exact text from the lightbox appears in the Google index is on this thread: http://bit.ly/mRQICc
-
Sorry for butting in on an old(ish) post, but I have a different opinion on this...
Correct the text used in the example does show up in the source code as HTML, but I dont think that indicates that google is reading that text.
For me there are two ways to check to see if Google is reading text:
1. Do an exact match (quotation marked) search in google.
2. Look at the cached version of the page in google in text only version.
From that information, the lightbox data is not showing up and for me that would indicate that the text is not being read.
Also, an interesting point to note is that 'Fetch as Googlebot' should not be used as a method of identifying what text is being parsed according to searchengineland http://searchengineland.com/see-what-googlebot-sees-on-your-site-27623
Feel free to prove me wrong!
thanks
james
-
I have read that article before. Keep in mind it is from 2008. Technology and Google have advanced substantially in the past 3 years.
100% of the text in all your lightbox is fully viewable by Google presently. William and I both looked and we see the text in your html source code. That means Google can see it as well.
-
Those are not issues on your site.
Your light box images are fully crawlable. Google sees all of the images and the text descriptions. You definitely want to add an ALT description. Otherwise you are in great shape.
-
thanks for all the responses guys.
my thoughts were most of the time it depends upon the script because some script hide data from the viewers while it shows the same data to Search Engine which turns out Clocking issue on website.. this could be proved very dangerous for the website.
Also seems like google does not crawl the images as often than normal web page.. because it hide the contents and creates unauthenticated website.
-
Sure thing brother!
-
Thank you William. Somehow I missed it during my review of the source code.
-
Hi Ryan,
Yes, I just did a search for the text I found in the Lightbox description for the Coco & Max logo. Right there. I've attached a couple images to show what I found.
Is this underneath a Javascript? I'd be interested to learn about the differences between different scripts as I see myself building sites that I would like to use the most SEO beneficial one.
-
Hi William.
Thanks for the feedback. I did look at the HTML and the real text is NOT visible. I am pretty sure that Google can read it even in the javascript, but I am not certain so I did not wish to offer that conclusively. If I knew which version was in use, such as Highslide, I could check and offer a confirmation.
The first image shared is the Coco and Max logo. If you click on that image the Lightbox will appear with a description that says "The Jenn Lee Group developed photography, business cards, expo-banner plus an ecommerce website for Coco and Max using a logo they had already developed. The Jenn Lee Group can pick up the ball at whatever stage you are currently in towards your marketing and advertising initiatives. Call us today! 401-885-3200"
I do not see that text snippet anywhere in the page's source code. Also, there are a total of 7 pictures offered in a group with that first image, each which their own text.
If you have any additional information, I would love to learn as well.
-
Lightbox should have zero negative impact in regards to SEO, providing you have effectively labeled your photos. I love the look of it, and although has a similar effect to flash, they have nothing to do with eachother in regards to negative SEO.
-
Hey Ryan,
The Original Poster is actually talking about the text descriptions of each logo that is listed.
The easy way to figure this out is to look in the HTML. If it's real text, then Google can crawl it. In your case it is.
So the content you have will be indexed.And you can do as Ryan suggested and add Alt Attribute to each image. It will help as well.
-
The biggest gap I see on your site is your images are all missing ALT tags. Search engines don't see images the way people do. By providing an alt tag, you can offer a description of each image. For example your first image alt tag might be "logo Coco & Max Doggie Distinctions".
There are many packages of javascript code which use Lightbox so if you want a more definite answer you would need to take a look at your specific package. Highslide and Suckerfish are two examples of Lightbox javascript coding packages. For additional research you can check out this article.
Another note. I would recommend changing your Meta description to readable text, not a list of key words. Your meta description is what people will see as your listing in search engines. It will not affect your search result ranking.
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
-
Can Image Quality In Online Store Effect Main Site SEO?
My client is building a new shopping cart that will be mobile friendly BUT will have terrible image quality - tiny images, with text on them. How will these tiny images impact the SEO on the main site? Should they put the store on the mainsite.com or on a subdomain (store.mainsite.com)? Does google see subdomains as part of the main site? I would think that having thousands of shopping product pages could be beneficial to the main site SEO, as long as the images don't negate the content. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jerrico10 -
How will changing my website's page content affect SEO?
Our company is looking to update the content on our existing web pages and I am curious what the best way to roll out these changes are in order to maintain good SEO rankings for certain pages. The infrastructure of the site will not be modified except for maybe adding a couple new pages, but existing domains will stay the same. If the domains are staying the same does it really matter if I just updated 1 page every week or so, versus updating them all at once? Just looking for some insight into how freshening up the content on the back end pages could potentially hurt SEO rankings initially. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bankable1 -
Links / Top Pages by Page Authority ==> pages shouldnt be there
I checked my site links and top pages by page authority. What i have found i dont understand, because the first 5-10 pages did not exist!! Should know that we launched a new site and rebuilt the static pages so there are a lot of new pages, and of course we deleted some old ones. I refreshed the sitemap.xml (these pages are not in there) and upload it in GWT. Why those old pages appear under the links menu at top pages by page authority?? How can i get rid off them? thx, Endre
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Neckermann0 -
Duplicate Page Content
We have different plans that you can signup for - how can we rectify the duplicate page content and title issue here? Thanks. | http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=100 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | directiq
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=104 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=116 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=117 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=102 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=119 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=101 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=103 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 1 | 200 |
| http://signup.directiq.com/?plan=5 |0 -
Why is our page will not being found by google?
Hi, We have a page that went live nearly 2 months ago. https://www.invoicestudio.com/Secure/InvoiceTemplate Why does google not notice it. Both site: URL's return nothing. site:www.invoicestudio.com/Secure/InvoiceTemplate site:www.invoicestudio.com/Secure This is an important page for us and do not understand why google doesn't like it. Hope you can help Thanks Andrew
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Studio330 -
Rel=canonical on image pages
Hi, Im working on a Wordpress hosted blog site. I recently did a "site:search" in Google for a specific article page to make sure it was getting crawled, and it returned three separate URLs in the search results. One was the article page, and the other two were the URLs that hosted the images that are found in the article. Would you suggest adding the rel=canonical tag to the pages that host the images so they point back to the actual context article page? Or are they fine being left alone? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dbfrench0 -
How much (%) of the content of a page is considered too much duplication?
Google is not fond of duplication, I have been very kindly told. So how much would you suggest is too much?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | simonberenyi0 -
301 Redirect or Canonical Tag or Leave Them Alone? Different Pages - Similar Content
We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are: **Version 1 -- Preferred Version: ** http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker Version 2: http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net Version 3: http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical. We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version. We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue. Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3? Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Matt M
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720