Does hidden content in jQuery ui tabs still get ignored?
-
I am looking for a more current answer to this question. I know that google leaves out the js and css. But since the code usually has display:hidden inline with the code while using jquery ui tabs I was curious to know if google considers this hidden or from what some articles have said, "tries to ignore the content".
Is this still true today? I would assume no but looking for some back-up.
-
nice article, thanks for getting back to me
-
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
-
How Does Google View Hidden Content?
I have a website which contains a lot of content behind a show hide, does Google crawl the "hidden" copy?
Web Design | | jasongmcmahon0 -
Managing Removed Content
I am a Real Estate Developer. Once a home goes off market (is sold), I had been using a 404 for that page. The problem: When the home goes up on market again, google will not re-index the new page (same URL) I have also tried to manage it a different way. Instead of removing the page, I left it as-is. At some later point time, the house goes back up on the market. The page is refreshed with new content. However, google decides to use cached version. Please note in either case, the property appears on the main page for a period of indexing. I have been doing this for 10 years, the problem is increasing with time.
Web Design | | Buckey0 -
Can the design still be considered adaptive if the URL is different?
I was under the impression our site had a mobile dedicated design, but my developers are telling me we have an adaptive design. The mobile site is set up different and has different content and the url is as follows: www.site.com/MobileView/MobileHome.aspx Can it still be considered adaptive if the URL is not the exact same? Hopefully this make sense and I appreciate anyone's input!
Web Design | | AliMac260 -
What is your opinion in the use of jquery for a continuous scroll type of page layout?
So, I'm in 2 minds about this; let me start with a bit of background info. Context
Web Design | | ChrisAshton
We have a new client who is in the final days of their new site design and were when they first contacted us. Their design essentially uses 5 pages, each with several pages worth of content on each, separated with the use of jquery. What this means is a user can click a menu item from a drop-down in the nav and be taken directly to that section of content like using internal anchor links as if it were a separate page, or they can click the top-level nav item and scroll through each "sub-page" without having to click other links. Vaguely similar to Google's "How Search Works" page if each sector of that page had it's own URL, only without the heavy design elements and slow load time. In this process, scrolling down to each new "sub-page" changes the URL in the address bar and is treated as a new page as far as referencing the page, adding page titles, meta descriptions, backlinks etc. From my research this also means search engines don't see the entire page, they see each sub-page as their own separate item like a normal site. My Reservations I'm worried about this for several reasons, the largest of them being that you're essentially presenting the user with something different to the search engines. The other big one being that I just don't know if search engines really can render this type of formatting correctly or if there's anything I need to look out for here. Since they're so close to launching their new site, I don't have time to set up a test environment and I'm not going to gamble with a new corporate website but they're also going to be very resistant to the advice of "start the design over, it's too dangerous". The Positives
For this client in particular, the design actually works very well. Each of these long pages is essentially about a different service they offer and the continuous scrolling through the "sub-pages" acts as almost a workflow through the process, covering each step in order. It also looks fantastic, loads quickly and has a very simple nav so the overall user experience is great. Since the majority of my focus in SEO is on UX, this is my confusion. Part of me thinks that obscuring the other content on these pages and only showing each individual "sub-page" to search engines is an obvious no-no, the other part of me feels that this kind of user experience and the reasonable prevalence of AJAX/Paralax etc means search engines should be more capable of understanding what's going on here. Can anyone possibly shed some light on this with either some further reading or first-hand experience?0 -
Fixing my sites problem with duplicate page content
My site has a problem with duplicate page content. SEO MOZ is telling me 725 pages worth. I have looked a lot into the 301 Re direct and the Rel=canonical Tag and I have a few questions: First of all, I'm not sure which on I should use in this case. I have read that the 301 Redirect is the most popular path to take. If I take this path do I need to go in and change the URL of each of these pages or does it automatically change with in the redirect when I plug in the old URL and the new one? Also, do I need to just go to each page that SEO MOZ is telling me is a duplicate and make a redirect of that page? One thing that I am very confused about is the fact that some of these duplicates listed out are actually different pages on my site. So does this just mean the URL's are too similar to each other, and there fore need the redirect to fix them? Then on the other hand I have a log in page that says it has 50 duplicates. Would this be a case in which I would use the Canonical Tag and would put it into each duplicate so that the SE knew to go to the original file? Sorry for all of the questions in this. Thank you for any responses.
Web Design | | JoshMaxAmps0 -
Minimising duplicate content
From a minimising duplicate content perspective is it best to create all blog posts with a single tag so google doesn't think the same post being returned via a different tag search is duplicate content. I.e. the urls below return the same blog post; or doesn't it matter. for example http://www.ukholidayplaces.co.uk/blog/?tag=/stay+in+Margate http://www.ukholidayplaces.co.uk/blog/?tag=/Margate+on+a+budget are the same posts... thanks
Web Design | | JonAcourt0 -
Real Estate and Duplicate Content
Currently we use an MLS which is an iFrame of property listings. We plan to pay an extra fee and have the crawlable version. But one problem is that many real estate firms have access to the same data, which makes our content duplicate of theirs. Is there any way around this ? Thanks
Web Design | | SGMan0 -
Best way to handle related content links in a sidebar?
My site contains tens of thousands of articles, studies, multimedia files, biographies, etc. To assist users with finding content that might be related to the page they're on, I use a side bar with 'also of interest' links to other, similar content on my site. This is, of course, pretty standard practice. Search engines -- Google in particular -- index these pages and then include the text in the sidebar links in search results. So, for example, on a given page I may have 20 links to related content, and the text in those links might be, 'A story about subject ABC.' When I search for 'A story about subject ABC,' Google returns not only the page titled (and containing the content) 'A story about subject ABC.' but also every page that links to it and happens to have that link text in the sidebar. What is the proper way to handle this kind of thing?
Web Design | | smorrison0