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
-
Both links with ".html" and without are working , Is that a problem ?
Default format of my url ending with ".html" , I know it's not a problem .. But both links with ".html" and without are working , Is that critical problem or not ? and how to solve it ?
Technical SEO | | Mohamed_Samer0 -
John Mueller says don't use Schema as its not working yet but I get markup conflicts using Google Mark-up
I watched recently John Mueller's Google Webmaster Hangout [DEC 5th]. In hit he mentions to a member not to use Schema.org as it's not working quite yet but to use Google's own mark-up tool 'Structured Data Markup Helper'. Fine this I have done and one of the tags I've used is 'AUTHOR'. However if you use Google's Structured Data Testing Tool in GWMT you get an error saying the following Error: Page contains property "author" which is not part of the schema. Yet this is the tag generated by their own tool. Has anyone experienced this before? and if so what action did you take to rectify it and make it work. As it stands I'm considering just removing this tag altogether. Thanks David cqbsdbunpicv8s76dlddd1e8u4g
Technical SEO | | David-E-Carey0 -
Custom hreflang tags in WP & using with Yoast
Hi My clients dev has added custom fields for adding hreflang tags to head of pages such as: "Rel Type", "The URL", and "Language Code" Am i right in thinking that until a different language/country version of the site is created these can remain empty or should they still be populated once added say with some sort of global reference or best left blank since will leave the head content global by default ? Also how important is it to add charset to the language code ? since seems optional ? Also this set up is on WP multi-site with Yoast and devs asked me the below: _One thing to note is that Yoast generates its own "canonical" tags - so if _
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence
_you are going to use hreflang tags and canonical tags then you don't need to _
_add a canonical using the custom fields I have set up - Yoast has that _
sorted. _But if you are going down the route of NOT having any canonical tags - and _
_using a x-defult for the hreflang tags, I will need to try and suppress the _
_Yoast canonical tag so you can do this. Much depends on your approach and _
what you think is best. So how do i know if using canonicals or x-default, i take it best simplest to leverage Yoast and hence not add canonicals to custom fields ? Isnt x-default just for indicating language selectors/redirector not specific to 1 region? So long as havnt got those then good to proceed with Yoasts generated canonicals ? Cheers dan0 -
What is the recommended or "best practice" Permalink Structure?
I have always been under the impression that by connecting pages to their parent pages as described in a.) below is best practice and makes sense to me. a.) yoursite.com/category/sub-category/product/ b.) yoursite.com/product But then i also understand the importance in terms of link juice being spread out across so many sub pages, and by using Example b.) you keep the link juice in tact. Your thoughts on this? Greg
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets0 -
Planing Seo For New Seo
Hello; I have the domain which registerd in 2006 and i opened website 1 months ago and i start to do some seo like bought links pr1-pr7 50 links and 2500 social bookmarks 2000 blog links and also some wiki links am i doing good or bad ?
Technical SEO | | Sadullah0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0 -
Thumbnail-based navigation like YouTube Sidebar - they don't use ALT tag
Notice on the YouTube sidebar, each video has a thumbnail and a title. But, for the ALT tag, YouTube simply uses the word "thumbnail". In the past, i was using a keyword phrase for my thumbnail ALT tag. I thought I was being clever. But is this superflous? We note that the A tag on the YouTube items, encompasses the SPAN that is the video + title. Does Google associate the text of the title as valid "anchor text" despite the existance of other info in that span --- e.g. like View Count and the User Name of the video creator? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | anthony-3054420 -
Is this a good link?
Found a .gov link to my website www.kars4kids.org. The url it links to is http://www.nyc.gov/cgi-bin/exit.pl?url=http://www.kars4kids.org/ which does eventually redirect to kars4kids. Will search engines see this as a link?
Technical SEO | | Morris770