I have login/signup popups on my site which are in hidden div by default.
According to Google SEO and hidden elements googlebot should NOT see it.
But Google Webmaster tool says that keywords "email" and "password" are top keywords over the site.
Why it is so? Why google bot sees them?
Should I worry about relevancy of top keywords at all?
Yes, Googlebot will see the text since it's in the HTML. However, it will probably know that it is hidden text, and thus may not give it a very high priority. Users searching for the text in hidden elements would be less likely to see your page.
Open your site in the Lynx browser it is a browser that displays only text and this is what Googlebot sees also
Also check the Google Webmaster guidelines scroll down to Technical Guidelines and you will see this text
Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site, because most search engine spiders see your site much as Lynx would. If fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash keep you from seeing all of your site in a text browser, then search engine spiders may have trouble crawling your site.
Related
I have added in the bottom of my html like this (just like how stackoverflow has it implemented):
<noscript>This site works best with Javascript is enabled</noscript>
but in one of my pages that has very little text, the text "Javascript is disabled" appears in Google search.
Is there a way to tell Google to avoid indexing this part? Or is there a better alternative instead of using <noscript> tag?
The issue is that Google often won't render Javascript. It can - but it often won't.
You either need to present a pre-rendered page or provide it with a meta description that accurately describes the content. Look up tags and how Google uses them to embellish it's search listings.
Other options like or can encourage Google from deviating from the provided description. However, a pre-rendered page for it to scrape is always more reliable.
If I have a site called http://example.com, and under it I have articles, such as:
http://example.com/articles/norwegian-statoil-ceo-resigns
Basically, I don't want the text from the frontpage to show on Google results, so that when you search for "statoil ceo", you ONLY get the article itself, but not the frontpage which contains this text but is not of the article itself.
If you did that, then Google could still display your home page with a note under the link saying they couldnt crawl the page. This is because robots.txt doesnt stop a page being indexed. You could noindex the home page, though personally I wouldnt recommend it.
i have a problem with sharing links of my website in Google+. So, if i want to share a link of my website (http://www.droidwiki.de/Hauptseite) G+ say, that the webpage can not be loaded. Same problem is with the Google +1 button on the page. If someone click this button, it appears a red exclamation mark. Sometimes, only the URL, but no opengraph data will show, but the most time, it only doesn't work. Other websites work perfectly with the account.
The same pages work without errors on facebook, will show the title of page and the opengraph description.
Have anybody the same problem, or a solution?
Thanks!
I'm not seeing any of the errors you're reporting.
While OpenGraph is supposed to work with Google's bot, it often doesn't work that well. Best practice is also to include schema.org microdata so Google's plus bot and search bot process it. See https://developers.google.com/+/web/snippet/ for details and http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets for a tool to help you test your markup.
Let says someone has 'legitimately' hidden content within a page.
To explain this further, imagine the following:
<div id="tab-one">This is the content inside tab one</div>
<div id="tab-two">This is the content inside tab two</div>
Tab one
Tab two
From an seo perspective, assuming that none of this is done to manipulate google. And in fact, "tab two" contains spam free, relevant data, how does this impact seo?
Will googlebot index, and conciser the 'hidden' content as part of the content of the page?
Will it use this content in the same way as though the content was "visible" on the page without the use of javacscript?
Thanks.
I don't believe there's an official Google response on this topic in the past, however, from experience I can tell you that Google will index the tabbed content just fine. You'll even see SEO traffic from the content. If you're site is fairly clean, I wouldn't worry about being flagged as having "hidden content", as long as the content is accessible by user action (e.g. clicking), and obviously clickable.
However, you'll want to consider this. Say for example, some of the content in a hidden tab is a product description such as "child safe". If a users is looking for "child safe products", and they arrive at your site through a search engine, they probably won't immediate see that information because they don't know it's buried behind a tab.
Most users don't spend a lot of time hunting, so to a user they might not find the content and bounce because they don't feel like they found the relevant information they were looking for. If you subscribe to the idea that Google and Bing use search query refinements as a search signal, this could potentially "harm" your SEO.
Personally, unless it's truly tertiary information, I wouldn't put it behind a tab unless crucial to the Ux. From my experience, users don't mind scrolling if the information is relevant ... but they tend to have "tab" blindness or only really interact with "hidden" elements when it's part of the navigation or already in a transactional flow.
p.s. An alternative is to use crawlable AJAX or pushState() to have the individual tabs indexed separately on their own URLs. But you'll want to be careful ... if you're rendering out the main content on the tab "pages", you might have a duplicate content concern. If it makes sense, you can potentially use the rel="next" and rel="prev" spec that Google released (but only supported by Google right now).
In Webmaster Tools you will find the option to Fetch as Google. There you can see just how Google is crawling the page. I've noticed some JavaScript carousel libraries are crawled, while others aren't. It's just a matter of how Google is able to read the JavaScript code.
As far as impact goes, it's not like all hidden content is bad. The content is still crawled (As you will see with the fetch). Now if there was an abundance of keyword-stuffed content, that would be susceptible to penalty.
Used correctly, it's definitely still beneficial.
The hidden content will be crawled, and this is not a problem for Google, many sites have this kind of menu. I suppose the hidden tabs are not keywords stuffed and useful for the users, so you shouldn't worry about this - it is useful for the user and googlebot!
All recently noticed that PDF documents in Scribd are also SEO friendly for search engines. For example the link http://www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson
If you open the page and see the HTML source code, the plain text from the PDF is not presented. However if you open the cached version of the page from Google search it appears a tag html_wrapper which contains the text from the entire PDF document.
Do they display different content depending of User-agent that make the request - ex. browser or bots?
I've heard some SEO practices that don't recommend displaying different content for bots? How bad practice is this from SEO prospective?
this is what google sees
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LY7o-liYlsJ:www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson+site:www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson&hl=en&strip=1
yeah, you should not display googlebot different content then a human user, said that there are ways to do ok conditional rendering (i.e.: render for no cookie clients, render for no javascript clients, render for clients without a language header, ...) this kind of rendering can be missleading, but if is not missleading then it might be ok for google. if you do this kind of conditional rendering it's then always a question of intend.