Does 'jump to' navigation work with a hidden div?
-
Will jump to navigation work when using a hidden div? Basically, we use a navigation system such that when a user clicks on a title, it expands to show the rest of the article, each title has an anchor associated with it, but no where else on the page / site do we link to those anchors.
In order to make jump to navigation work, we are considering adding a hidden div with links to the anchors. Does anyone have experience doing this? Did it work?
-
The best I can think of would be to link to the anchors from the page the "level" above.
In other words, on a category page (or equivalent), display links to the page plus its named anchors (actually, much like Google's sitelinks). It's impossible to weigh up the relative weight of links from within the page to links from elsewhere on the site without inside knowledge, but I would prefer this to hidden links.
-
Hi WIll,
Yes, I understand that 'jump to navigation' is determined algorithmically.
We can't actually link to the anchors because, as mentioned, the UI we've developed has better user engagement (one of our main goals is to improve user engagement site-wide). The anchors exist in a sort of expand / collapse format, so that the user can see the entire content and click on titles to see more.
I suppose the other option would be to put it in a hidden div, and add javascript so that the user could see the links if they wanted (even though, essentially, there isn't any value-add to the user since they can already see the content list)?
-
Firstly, it isn't automatic for Google to add links to your in-page anchors no matter what you do.
It's hard to say for sure whether placing hidden links to the named anchors will work in your specific case - but I would say that if it does work, I'd view it as a short-term solution and probably more risky than I'd like to see for limited reward.
Why not actually link to the anchors? If you think that people might want to jump direct to them from the search results, mightn't people want to navigate to them when they're on your site as well?
There is essentially never a good reason for hiding information that you want Google to find - it should be there for the users as well.
-
Mainly, would google use 'jump to' sections of our page in the SERPs. We have anchors, but no links to the anchors, and are hoping that by adding a hidden div with links to the anchors, it will activate 'jump to navigation.'
The hidden div would be added just for the sake of adding the links to the anchors--it wouldn't be visible to users. We've found user engagement is higher for the type of navigation we built, but want to make sure 'jump to' works (is visiible in google SERPs).
Thanks in advance for your help.
-
Hi Michelle,
What do you mean by "work"? Are you intending to have a way of exposing this hidden div (in a drop-down or similar)?
One of the most common uses of jump to navigation is for screen readers for the visually-impaired. I imagine that a hidden div could work well for that as they typically ignore CSS styling but I imagine it would need testing in the specific readers.
Happy to dig into this further if you have more info about your plans.
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
-
Working on new link structure
Hello Mozzzzzzzzzzz I'm currently working on the new link structure for our website. We currently organize our content in sub folder =Main category
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | floaumet
= = Sub category
= = =Specialty
= = = Product main name
= = = ==Product specific name
= = = == =Manufacturer Each of them has some potential strong KW and I will be happy to use it on the URL. URL are more than 50 kw long when I use all This are very niche item for which people may refer to them through different names (potential folders) My current concerns will be Should we make long url respecting the structure (Main category)/(Sub category)/(Specialty)/(Product main name)/(Product specific name)/(maufacturer) Should I combine some like (Main category)/(Sub category)/(Specialty)/(Product main name)/(Product specific name)-(maufacturer) Should I keep them simple /(product_main name) Should I keep the main folders just to display the articles belonging to this category (Main category)/(Sub category)/(Specialty)/(Product main name) and then keep the product under a sub folder only? Any other idea?0 -
How to check competitors' strengths/weaknesses?
How to and what to check in competitors' strengths/weaknesses?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Green.landon1 -
Interlinking vs. 'orphaning' mobile page versions in a dynamic serving scenario
Hi there, I'd love to get the Moz community's take on this. We are working on setting up dynamic serving for mobile versions of our pages. During the process of planning the mobile version of a page, we identified a type of navigational links that, while useful enough for desktop visitors, we feel would not be as useful to mobile visitors. We would like to remove these from our mobile version of the page as part of offering a more streamlined mobile page. So we feel that we're making a fine decision with user experience in mind. On any single page, the number of links removed in the mobile version would be relatively few. The question is: is there any danger in “orphaning” the mobile versions of certain pages because links don’t exist pointing to those pages on our mobile pages? Is this a legitimate concern, or is it enough that none of the desktop versions of pages are orphaned? We were not sure whether it’s even possible, in Googlebot’s eyes, to orphan a mobile version of a page if we use dynamic serving and if there are no orphaned desktop versions of our pages. (We also plan to link to "full site" in the footer.) Thank you in advance for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
Eric0 -
How do I tell if competitor's links are good?
One strategy I have seen recommended over and over is to look at your competitor's back links and see if any could be relevant for your site and worth pursuing. My question is how do I evaluate a link and not end up pursuing some penalized site? I would guess checking for Google index is a good idea since some of the webmasters may not be aware they are penalized. Is it DA and whether they are indexed alone? Many sites I have seen have DA in the teens but are legitimate in our industry. Should they not be considered due to low DA? Also I see links from directories on many competitor sites. Seems a controversial subject, but assuming the directory is industry specific, is it OK? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chris6610 -
Google don't index .ee version of a website
Hello, We have a problem with our clients website .ee. This website was developed by another company and now we don't know what is wrong with it. If i do a Google search "site:.ee" it only finds konelux.ee homepage and nothing else. Also homepage title tag and meta dec is in Finnish language not in Estonian language. If i look at .ee/robots.txt it looks like robots.txt don't block Google access. Any ideas what can be wrong here? BR, T
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sfinance0 -
Is there anyway to recover my site's rankings?
My site has been top 3 for 'speed dating' on Google.co.uk since about 2003 and it went to below top 50 for a lot of it's main keywords shortly after 27 Oct 2012. I did a re-submission request and was told there was 'no manual spam action'. My conclusions is I was dropped by Google because of poor quality links I've gained over 10+ years. I have a Domain Authority of 40, a regular blog http://bit.ly/oKyi88, a KLOUT of 42, user reviews and quality content. Since Oct 2012 I've done some technical improvements and managed to get a few questionable links removed. I've continued blogging reguarly and got more active on Twitter. I've seen no improvement and my traffic is 80% down on last year. It would be great to be able to produce content that others want to link to but I've not had much success from that in over 10 years of trying and I've not seen many others in my sector, with small budgets having much success. Is there anything I can do to regain favour with Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | benners0 -
No reply from Google despite reconsideration and hard work!
Hi everyone, I hope someone can help. The site www.danbro.co.uk suffered a manually penalty in April. It had a number of poor quality sitewide blog links and the link profile looked (and still does despite a massive improvement) unnatural. The work to over turn the penalty Since then 80% of the spammy blog links have been taken down. the other 20% of sites simply do no respond to requests (these sites were documented). The webmaster also has started building up more natural links as 95% of the anchor text could be classed as 'money keywords'.A low % of links included the brand name at all. A number of requests have been sent ( i told the site manager this should have been avoided but hay-ho). The last request of which i assisted them with was sent last week. The reconsideration was extremely detailed and documented all link removals and links that were still live yet poor quality. some questions Its been a few months since the penalty - should a brand new site be launched? If option '1' was to be implemented, is a 302 re-direct a feasible option as the site's content is vast? will this pass on the penalty? in your opinion Is the websites link profile the root of this penalty? If point '3' is true would you a) start a fresh site or b) continue working on balancing the link profile? Any help or case studies would be tremendous thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Townpages0 -
Am I losing link juice with 302-redirected faceted navigation?
My site has faceted navigation that allows shoppers to filter category page results by things brand, size, price range, etc. These pages 302 redirect to the same page they came from, which already include canonical meta tags. I added the rel="nofollow" attribute to the facet links and added the line "Disallow: /category_filter/" to robots.txt. One of our SEO consultants told me that this is likely diluting the potency of the page's link juice since they are divided among all the page's links, including the links I am instructing crawlers to disregard. Can anybody tell me whether I am following the best practices for links that redirect to the same page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TahoeMountain400