Ranking penalty for "accordion" content -- hidden prior to user interaction
-
Will content inside an "accordion" module be ranked as non-hidden content?
Is there an official guide by google and other search engines addressing this?
Example of accordion element: https://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/components/collapse/#accordion-example
Will all elements in the example above be seen + treated equally by search engines?
-
Although I have no active accordions at the moment, I do have bootstrap tabs and all of the hidden content within the tabs is crawled. To test your own page, go to webmaster tools and Fetch as Google. When fetching is done, click on the page link and select the tab "Fetching". This shows all of the HTML crawled and you can verify that the content in the accordion has been crawled. You also mentioned "penalty". Google's policy on penalties for hidden content is here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66353?hl=en. Google would not consider tabs and accordions containing legitimate content (no white text etc.) to fall under this "Hidden text and links" category.
-
Content inside an "accordion" module can be seen by Google for example if read more button is clicked to display more text. This is not hidden content and do not have to worry.
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
-
Managing Zendesk content, specifically redirecting/retiring content?
We've been using Zendesk to manage support content, and have old/duplicate articles that we'd like to redirect. However, Zendesk doesn't seem to have a solution for this, and the suggestions we've found (some hacky JS) have not worked. I'd like for us to not just delete/hide these articles. Has anyone else successfully navigated retiring/redirecting Zendesk content in an SEO-friendly fashion?
Technical SEO | | KMStrava0 -
#1 rankings on both HTTP and HTTPS vs duplicate content
We're planning a full migrate to HTTPS for our website which is accessible today by both **www.**website.com, **http://**www.website.com as well as **https://**www.website.com. After the migrate the website will only be accessible by https requests and every other request (Ex. www or http) will be redirected to the same page but in HTTPS by 301 redirects. We've taken a lot of precautions like fixing all the internal links to HTTPS instead of HTTP etc. My questions is: What happened to your rankings for HTTP after making a full migrate to HTTPS?
Technical SEO | | OliviaStokholm0 -
Intentional Duplicate Content - Great UX, Bad for Ranking?
I'll try to keep this as clear and high level as possible. Thank you in advance for any and all help! We're managing a healthcare practice which specializes in neurosurgical treatments. As the practice is rather large, the doctors have several "specialties" in which they focus in, i.e. back surgery, facial surgery, brain surgery, etc. They have a main website (examplepractice.com) which holds ALL of their content on each condition and treatment in which they deal with. So, if someone enters their main homepage they will see conditions and treatments for all the specialties categorized together. However, linked within the main site are "mini-sites" for each specialty (same domain, same site) (examplepractice.com/brain-surgery), but with a different navigation menu to give the illusion of "separate website". These mini-sites are then tailored from a creative, content and UX perspective to THAT specific group of treatments and conditions. Now, anyone who enters this minisite will find information pertaining to only that specialty. The mini-sites are NOT set up as folders, but rather just a system of URLs that we have mapped out to each page. We set up the pages this way to maintain an exclusive feel for the site. Instead of someone drilling into a specific condition and having the menu change, we created the copies. But, because of how this is set up, we now have duplicate content for each treatment and condition child page (one on the main site, one on the minisite). My question (finally) is will this cause a problem in the future? Are we essentially splitting the "juice" between these two pages? Are we making it easier for our competitors to outrank us? We know this layout makes sense from the perspective of a user, but we're unclear how to move forward from a search perspective. Any tips?
Technical SEO | | frankmassanova1 -
"non-WWW" vs "WWW" in Google SERPS and Lost Back Link Connection
A Screaming Frog report indicates that Google is indexing a client's site for both: www and non-www URLs. To me this means that Google is seeing both URLs as different even though the page content is identical. The client has not set up a preferred URL in GWMTs. Google says to do a 301 redirect from the non-preferred domain to the preferred version but I believe there is a way to do this in HTTP Access and an easier solution than canonical.
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en GWMTs also shows that over the past few months this client has lost more than half of their backlinks. (But there are no penalties and the client swears they haven't done anything to be blacklisted in this regard. I'm curious as to whether Google figured out that the entire site was in their index under both "www" and "non-www" and therefore discounted half of the links. Has anyone seen evidence of Google discounting links (both external and internal) due to duplicate content? Thanks for your feedback. Rosemary0 -
Choosing the right page for rel="canonical"
I am wondering how you would choose which page to use as a canonical ? All our articles sit in an article section and they are called in the url when linked from a particular category. Since some articles are in many categories, we may have several links for the same page. My first idea was to put the one in the article category as the canonical, but I wonder if Google will lose the context of the page for it's ranking because it will not be in the proper category. For exemple, this page in the article section : http://www.bdc.ca/en/advice_centre/articles/Pages/exporting_entering.aspx Same page in the Expand Your Sales > Going Global section : http://www.bdc.ca/EN/advice_centre/expand_your_sales/going_global_or_international_markets/Pages/RelatedArticles.aspx?PATH=/EN/advice_centre/articles/Pages/exporting_entering.aspx The second one has much more context related to it, like the breadcrumb is showing the path and the left menu is open at the right place. For this example, I would choose te second one, but some articles may be found in 2 or 3 categories. If you could share your lights on this it would be very appreciated ! Thanks
Technical SEO | | jfmonfette0 -
Is a Rel="cacnonical" page bad for a google xml sitemap
Back in March 2011 this conversation happened. Rand: You don't want rel=canonicals. Duane: Only end state URL. That's the only thing I want in a sitemap.xml. We have a very tight threshold on how clean your sitemap needs to be. When people are learning about how to build sitemaps, it's really critical that they understand that this isn't something that you do once and forget about. This is an ongoing maintenance item, and it has a big impact on how Bing views your website. What we want is end state URLs and we want hyper-clean. We want only a couple of percentage points of error. Is this the same with Google?
Technical SEO | | DoRM0 -
We are still seeing duplicate content on SEOmoz even though we have marked those pages as "noindex, follow." Any ideas why?
We have many pages on our website that have been set to "no index, follow." However, SEOmoz is indexing them as duplicate content. Why is that?
Technical SEO | | cmaseattle0 -
Where can I find a good definition of "link juice"?
I have heard the term link juice being used in many different contexts. Where can I find a good definition for it?
Technical SEO | | casper4340