Does Google Still Pass Anchor Text for Multiple Links to the Same Page When Using a Hashtag? What About Indexation?
-
Both of these seem a little counter-intuitive to me so I want to make sure I'm on the same page.
I'm wondering if I need to add "#s to my internal links when the page I'm linking to is already:
a.) in the site's navigation
b.) in the sidebar
More specifically, in your experience...do the search engines only give credit to (or mostly give credit to) the anchor text used in the navigation and ignore the anchor text used in the body of the article?
I've found (in here) a couple of folks mentioning that content after a hashtagged link isn't indexed.
Just so I understand this...
a.) if I were use a hashtag at the end of a link as the first link in the body of a page, this means that the rest of the article won't be indexed?
b.) if I use a table of contents at the top of a page and link to places within the document, then only the areas of the page up to the table of contents will be indexed/crawled?
Thanks ahead of time! I really appreciate the help.
-
Howdy Spencer!
Whoa! Lot's of questions here. Let's see if we can sort this out.
There's a lot of debate around this, and for the most part most SEOs consider the use of hashes okay for user experience, but mostly minor when it comes to influencing search results.
Here's what we know. Google indexes the first anchor text in the HTML. This is not necessarily the same thing as the first anchor on the visible page, as the HTML/CSS can be arranged so that links appear above others on the page.
That said, folks have experimented and found ways to get additional anchors indexed, including the use of hash tags. That said, what we don't know is how much weight/authority these links pass. It's generally believed (and I support this) that they probably don't pass as much value to the page as previous links.
If you have a link in your navigation, and another in the text body further down in the HTML, Google will index the first anchor, but most likely not the 2nd in most circumstances. Does this mean Google doesn't pass any value through the second? There's a lot of debate about this (read the comments here:http://www.seomoz.org/blog/all-about-anchor-text-whiteboard-friday)
I find it best not to micro-manage your links and simply keep the following in mind: If you want a link to pass as much value and authority as possible, place it in the body of the page.
Certainly there's a case made for using named anchors (#). They're good for navigation and user experience, and we see search engines pick them up in search results, but the value gained by manipulating them for ranking purposes is likely negligible.
"I've found (in here) a couple of folks mentioning that content after a hashtagged link isn't indexed."
Hmm.... I've never heard of that, and it sounds fishy. Love to see any research that's been done.
Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.
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
-
Only fraction of the AMP pages are indexed
Back in June, we had seen a sharp drop in traffic on our website. We initially assumed that it was due to the Core Update that was rolled out in early June. We had switched from http to https in May, but thought that should have helped rather than cause a problem. Until early June the traffic was trending upwards. While investigating the issue, I noticed that only a fraction (25%) of the AMP pages have been indexed. The pages don't seem to be getting indexed even though they are valid. Accordingly to Google Analytics too, the percentage of AMP traffic has dropped from 67-70% to 40-45%. I wonder if it is due to the indexing issue. In terms of implementation it seems fine. We are pointing canonical to the AMP page from the desktop version and to the desktop version from the AMP page. Any tips on how to fix the AMP indexing issue. Should I be concerned that only a fraction of the AMP pages are indexed. I really hope you can help in resolving this issue.
Technical SEO | | Gautam1 -
Canonicalization, does it still index
If I have 2 pages that are identical but on different domains that our team manages, if we place a rel=canonical tag on the page we prefer/should display, will the page that doesn't have the canonical tag still be indexed and show on SERPs?
Technical SEO | | kroe10 -
Google is indexing our old domain
We changed our primary domain from vivitecsolutions.com to vivitec.net. Google is indexing our new domain, but still has our old domain indexed too. The problem is that the old site is timing out because of the https: Thought on how to make the old indexing go away or properly forward the https?
Technical SEO | | AdsposureDev0 -
3,511 Pages Indexed and 3,331 Pages Blocked by Robots
Morning, So I checked our site's index status on WMT, and I'm being told that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and the robots are blocking 3,331. This seems slightly odd as we're only disallowing 24 pages on the robots.txt file. In light of this, I have the following queries: Do these figures mean that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and blocking 3,331 other pages? Or does it mean that it's blocking 3,331 pages of the 3,511 indexed? As there are only 24 URLs being disallowed on robots.text, why are 3,331 pages being blocked? Will these be variations of the URLs we've submitted? Currently, we don't have a sitemap. I know, I know, it's pretty unforgivable but the old one didn't really work and the developers are working on the new one. Once submitted, will this help? I think I know the answer to this, but is there any way to ascertain which pages are being blocked? Thanks in advance! Lewis
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Why did Google stop indexing my site?
Google used to crawl my site every few minutes. Suddenly it stopped and the last week it indexed 3 pages out of thousands. https://www.google.co.il/#q=site:www.yetzira.com&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=I9aTUfTTCaKN0wX5moCgAw&ved=0CBgQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=cfac44f10e55f418&biw=1829&bih=938 What could cause this to happen and how can I solve this problem? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | JillB20130 -
Nofollow links if you have more than one link on a page to the same destination.
Hi, I am wondering if someone can confirm that its best practice to have nofollow on secondary links on a page. For instance the contact page may have a link in the navigation and in the the blurb down the page have another link to the contact page saying contact us here etc.. So in this instance i would put a nofollow on the secondary link in the blurb would this be the best way to impliment this. Many thanks Chris
Technical SEO | | InteractiveRed670 -
Will using http ping, lastmod increase our indexation with Google?
If Google knows about our sitemaps and they’re being crawled on a daily basis, why should we use the http ping and /or list the index files in our robots.txt? Is there a benefit (i.e. improving indexability) to using both ping and listing index files in robots? Is there any benefit to listing the index sitemaps in robots if we’re pinging? If we provide a decent <lastmod>date is there going to be any difference in indexing rates between ping and the normal crawl that they do today?</lastmod> Do we need to all to cover our bases? thanks Marika
Technical SEO | | marika-1786190 -
Is this 404 page indexed?
I have a URL that when searched for shows up in the Google index as the first result but does not have any title or description attached to it. When you click on the link it goes to a 404 page. Is it simply that Google is removing it from the index and is in some sort of transitional phase or could there be another reason.
Technical SEO | | bfinternet0