Hidden text that's not show in default view, does it hurt my on page optimization?
-
Hello,
I am developing our new site that will create tabs such as "design", "tech specs", "customer ratings" etc. just like http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-15z-5523/pd.
My question is, if most of my content is on the 2nd and 3rd tabs, would my content effect my overall SEO if it's not on it's default view?
Because, if users don't physically click on the 2nd and 3rd tab, does it mean that since there is no impression of that content, that content will be allocated to half of its SEO juice?
Let me know, I would love to know!
- Shawn
-
I don't know if that really matters but I prefer to use z-index to show tabs using css instead of display:none. It makes more sense for me that the tab is under the other, but still there, then just say that it is hidden
-
Extremely helpful.
I'm good now
-
It's all about the way the page is coded. Most tabs use JavaScript but many of them will simple add a display:none; style tag on the hidden content which is bad. That basically tells Google, that you're not planning to show this content to users even though you may. In return, that content won't give you much "SEO juice" because it's hidden.
Even though this topic is controversial, I have ran some tests that show that when all the content is visible at once, you'll get more "SEO juice" from the content.
hope this helps!
-
That does a decent job - I was able to see your tabbed content in the example URL you PM'd me.
Really the final test is going to be testing it once your page is live and indexed by Google.
Hope this helps.
Mike
-
Just DM'ed you James. Thanks in advance!
-
That definitely helps Mike. My content is above the fold and I'm going to privately message you my development site so you can check. Thank you so much!
-
Hi Shawn,
Google does not look at page content the same way humans do. Google is more concerned about you providing a good experience for your users. I believe that using tabs, if coded correctly, is one way of providing good experience and additional information.
If you view this text only version of the dell.com page you referenced, you will see how Google is viewing that page - there are no tabs, simply text and hyperlinks.
As far as SEO is concerned, it used to be the goal to put all of your important content, above the fold; however, that is not as important as it once was.
If you Google: site:www.dell.com Native HD 1.0 MP webcam with dual digital array microphone, you can see that the Inspiron 15z Ultrabook appears in one of results. This text is on the Tech Specs tab and is still being indexed by Google.
Long story short - Google "should" (depending on the way you set up your tabs) be able to crawl, index, and rank your page when you use content on tabs.
Does that answer your question?
Mike
-
It depends on how you are coding it? Can you paste some sample code?
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
-
Fetch as Google showing Tablet View, not Desktop View
Hi Mozers, Fetch as Google is showing Tablet view and not Desktop view. Does anyone know why this is? And does that mean that Googlebot is reading the Tablet version instead of the Desktop version (same HTML but different visualization)? Thanks!! Yael
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | yaelslater0 -
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
What's the best redirect to use for a newer version of a blog post?
For example: suppose you have a post "The Best Games to Play for YouTube Gamers in 2016" and you want to make this a yearly series. Should you 301 the 2016 version to the new 2017 one? Should you use the canonical attribute? If 2016 isn't in the URL, should you make the 2017 one the new URL?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Edward_Sturm0 -
How can I optimize pages in an index stack
I have created an index stack. My home page is http://www.southernwhitewater.com My home page (if your look at it through moz bat for chrome bar} incorporates all the pages in the index. Is this Bad? I would prefer to index each page separately. As per my site index in the footer What is the best way to optimize all these pages individually and still have the customers arrive at the top and links directed to the home page ( which is actually the 1st page). I feel I am going to need a rel=coniacal might be needed somewhere. Any help would be great!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VelocityWebsites0 -
Does Google Read URL's if they include a # tag? Re: SEO Value of Clean Url's
An ECWID rep stated in regards to an inquiry about how the ECWID url's are not customizable, that "an important thing is that it doesn't matter what these URLs look like, because search engines don't read anything after that # in URLs. " Example http://www.runningboards4less.com/general-motors#!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 Basically all of this: #!/Classic-Pro-Series-Extruded-2/p/28043025/category=6593891 That is a snippet out of a conversation where ECWID said that dirty urls don't matter beyond a hashtag... Is that true? I haven't found any rule that Google or other search engines (Google is really the most important) don't index, read, or place value on the part of the url after a # tag.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Atlanta-SMO0 -
If it's not in Webmaster Tools, is it Duplicate Title
I am showing a lot of errors in my SEOmoz reports for duplicate content and duplicate titles, many of which appear to be related to capitalization vs non-capitalization in the URL. Case in point, if a URL contains a lower character, such as: http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/allyson-krowitz/distinct-microstructure-i as opposed to the same URL having an upper character in the structure: http://www.gallerydirect.com/art/product/allyson-krowitz/distinct-microstructure-I I am finding that some of the internal links on the site use the former structure and other links use the latter structure. These show as duplicate title/content in the SEOmoz reports, but they don't appear as duplicate titles in Webmaster Tools. My question is, should I try to work with our developers to create a script to change all of the content with cap letters in the destination links internally on the site, or is this a non-issue since it doesn't appear in Webmaster Tools?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sbaylor0 -
What would your Seo tactic's be for this
Hiya guys... Just a quicken, So my forum, talknightlife.co.uk is currently 10th on google for "nightlife forum" I have about 15 back links, 26 page autority. Now what i'm trying to do, which everyone else is doing, is trying to move it up a couple of spots maybe to 5th or something. What would your tactics be, I'm disregarding all the crap I read in the forums etc, you guys on here tend to have the best explanation. Let it rip 🙂 Cheers guys Luke.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lukescotty0 -
How are pages ranked when using Google's "site:" operator?
Hi, If you perform a Google search like site:seomoz.org, how are the pages displayed sorted/ranked? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | anthematic0
