CSS Float Top Left Image not displaying
-
Using CSS/HTML in Dreamweaver CC, I am trying to display a SEO friendly matrix of six images wide by three deep on the Home Page, but cannot get the first (top left) image to display consistently.
The page appears correctly in Dreamweaver Design View, but not in the Live View. Equally it works fine in Safari, but not in Firefox nor I.E.
I seem to have tried every CSS variation to resolve this issue, without success. Can someone stear me in the right direction, please?
The relevant HTML Code ...
Celotex PL4050 - 62.5mm insulated wallboard from £11.96 per m² / £34.45 per board
SuperFoil SF19 40mm Multi-foil Roll from £5.23 per m² / £98.00 per 18.75 m² Roll
Celotex GA4000 General application Rigid PIR from £8.56 per m² / £24.66 per board
Rockwool Full-fill 75mm Cavity Wall Slabs from £3.51 per m² / £1.92 per slab
Knauf Earthwool 270mm Loft Roll 44 Combi-Cut from £3.80 per m² / £22.51 per 9.93 m² Roll
Kingspan Kooltherm K8 75mm Cavity Wall Boards from £16.26 per m² / £8.79 per board
Knauf Earthwool 170mm Combi-cut Loft Roll 44 from £3.16 per m² / £25.34 per 8 m² Roll
Kingspan Kooltherm K7 Rigid Phenolic Foam - 75mm £13.91 per m² / £40.05 per board
...
The associated CSS code ...
#popular {
width: 1050px;
height: 800px;
overflow: hidden;
width: auto;
height: auto;
}
#product1 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/01-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 24px;
float: left;
overflow: auto;
clear: left;
}
#product2 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/02-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
opacity: 0.85;
}
#product3 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/03-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
opacity: 0.85;
}
#product4 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/04-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
}
#product5 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/05-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
opacity: 0.85;
}
#product6 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/06-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
opacity: 0.85;
}
#product7 {
clear: both;
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/07-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 24px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
opacity: 0.85;
}
#product8 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/08-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
}
#product9 {
background-image: url(../007-graphics/popular/09-prod.png);
background-repeat: no-repeat;
width: 150px;
height: 265px;
margin-left: 10px;
float: left;
max-height: 275px;
opacity: 0.85;
} ...The complete code is located at - www.just-insulation.com/index.html
-
G'day Jesse,
I have added the following code to my .htaccess file ...
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /.index.html\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://www.just-insulation.com/$1 [R=301,L]All attempts to add a similar code to redirect in the other direction results in the home page not loading, or the creation of an infinite loop.
Open Site Explorer still returns ...
www.just-insulation.com a PA of 32 and
www.just-insulation.com/index.html a PA of 15The thought of all this lost link juice is making me really thirsty.
-
Yes exactly. Assuming you're on an Apache server, of course.
Just to clarify, I ran both URLs through Open Site Explorer and sure enough two different Page Authorities returned:
www.just-insulation.com has a PA of 32
www.just-insulation.com/index.html has a PA of 15
Showing that in fact your link juice is splitting there when ideally you will want it combined.
-
Should I understand that you are proposing that I use the .htaccess file to create a server side redirect?
-
No problem.
While it is good you have the canonical tag present, you should still redirect one to the other. The canonical tag will prevent any duplicate content issues with your site so at least you don't have to worry about that. But not redirecting can still have some unwanted effects on your page.
Basically it can split your PR/PA between two URLs. If somebody links to yourdomain.com and another somebody links to yourdomain.com/index.html these two links are now receiving juice separately. The canonical tag does not carry link juice. That is why you want to 301 the index.html page to your root domain. Your hosting provider should be able to do this easily for you, or go ahead and google it if you have your own server. (the process changes based on whether you're hosting via Apache servers or IIS servers.)
I would still focus on getting that redirected. It'll save you headaches in the future.
Good luck!
-
Thanks again for your input, Jesse.
Your 301 Redirect has me worried. We presently have the canonical statement on our home page ... - and thought that this was the correct way to prioritise http://www.just-insulation.com over http://www.just-insulation.com/index.com . Also, the weekly Moz Campaign Crawl Diagnostics is not showing any errors. Can you elaborate on the best method to resolve this issue?
I continue to search for an appropriate SEO friendly Add-in that will allow me to frequently change the front page images / hyperlinks / descriptions / etcetera. However, I certainly do take your advice on board.
Many thanks.
-
Bravo, sir! May I make one more SEO related quick-suggestion:
Make sure you redirect your page with a 301 to avoid duplicate content. Right now you have two addresses (www.domain.com and www.domain.com/index.html) displaying the same content. These will both be indexed and should be redirected.
Also from a usability standpoint I feel like the images should be clickable... But there are a ton of these little nit-picky changes I'll leave to you
You might be kind of shooting yourself in the foot with the whole image name thing. You don't have alt tags or image names and that can affect your on-site optimization. However you won't rank for every product on one page anyway so in your case it might not matter terribly. Still I'd raise an eyebrow if it were my page..
Anyway good luck!
-
Greetings Jesse,
Thanks for the feedback. It seems that once I removed the drop shadows from the images, the situation resolved itself. Clearly there was a sizing issue with one or more of the images that was throwing the CSS float out of kilter.
The reason that I named the images prod-1, prod-2, prod-3, was to semi-automate future image changes. As these are background images, populated through CSS, rather then HTML, I understood that they had no influence on SEO.
Sorry about your headache, and 'Yes', you were quite right that the 'Happy Monkey' font was totally over the top! That came about because of my mistake in the CSS Links, and has since been resolved.
I have been trying to identify a jQuery Gallery or Lightbox to use instead of CSS, but without luck so far.
Again, my thanks for your critique.
-
Hi there Maximise,
Thank you for the advice. The problem is now solved thanks to the responses to my post.
It seems, that (following Jesse's critique) when I removed the drop shadows from the images, the situation resolved itself. I can only imagine that the Drop Shadows were effecting the image size, and this impacted upon the CSS Float mechanism.
Anyway, thanks again.
-
Thanks!
It relates to elements that are floated. Options are left, right, both or none. So if you have "clear:left" then this element can not have any floated elements to it's left and would therefore be bumped to the next line.
-
Ha! Yeah that'll do it. Nicely done Maximise.
As a side, what does the clear: operator do in CSS?
-
The product 1 image doesn't seem to exist. Are you sure you don't have it cached in some browsers? Follow this link and press F5 to see if it loads - it doesn't for me.
http://www.just-insulation.com/007-graphics/popular/01-prod.png
-
Couple things here --
First off I'm not sure you'll get the best coding advice here on the moz forums.. Although I know there are some people here who are good at it for sure. You may be better off with these types of questions at stackoverflow.com (just a thought)
Moz will give you awesome marketing/optimization tips though. For example, I might say to you "hey why are your images titled '09-prod.png' that isn't doing anything for your optimization..." Or I might say "oof. No offense but that site kinda gives me a headache. See if you can make it less busy and scale that drop shadow down... Is that comic sans?? no."
But also to answer your question, my best bet would be that your first product definition in the CSS has a "clear:left" operator assigned to it. That is most likely why it is not displaying. Try removing that.
Hope this helps!
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
-
Question about Image Optimization and File Size -- Does it really matter
I was using Moz's guidelines (https://mza.seotoolninja.com/learn/seo/page-speed) to reduce the file size of my pages to improve load speed, but I'm not sure it really makes much of a difference. On this page https://www.mtecorp.com/cad/MAPP0006A002/, the file size is 710KB and it's Google Page Insight Score is 84 on desktop and 66 on mobile. On this page https://www.mtecorp.com/cad/SWNW0130E/, I got the image size to 227KB and its Google Page insight Score is virtually the same, 87 on desktop and 62 on mobile. Any ideas if it is really worth the time to get images down? (or maybe it doesn't matter if it is less than 1,000KB.
Technical SEO | | EricVallee1 -
Updating product pages with new images - should I redirect old images ?
Hello,
Technical SEO | | ninjahippo
We have approx 900 products on our website. Over the coming months we will be replacing the product images. At the moment they have file names like 'green_widget_54eb3a78620be.jpg'
the random jumble at the end of the filename was apparently to keep file names unique. We have removed the jumble part and will have file names like:
'black_widget_with_stripe_001.jpg' The CMS removes the old main image when a new main image is uploaded. But we could change this to leave the old image, but not use it. My question is should we: redirect the old file name to the new file name? upload the new image, and leave the old image in place Or do we just ignore.0 -
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)
My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal0 -
Best way to present a single image from a gallery?
Hi. I want to make a page for each image on my clients gallery, so that each image page will be indexed and rank. (It's a tattoo portal and theres a lot of traffic on specific tattoos) But as the setup is for now, the only way it will be different from the other image pages, is the H1 title. Can you guys give some examples on "spot on" galleries SEO-wise, i could draw some ideas from?
Technical SEO | | MichaelRoscoe0 -
Are there negative SEO implications to pages without any images?
Hi Mozzers, Do you think there are any negative effects of having no images on a page but several hundreds words of text? (There is a logo image and call to action buttons). Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Charlessipe0 -
Replace Header Text With Image
I have a static website that I would like to retheme. I have the mockup, and its spliced. The website holds nice rankings right now, and I want to keep them in place. The one thing that will change with this new design is the header will no longer be text, but instead an image. Is there a way to ensure googlebot still sees the H1 tag header exactly how it is now but use an image for the header instead? I dont want any blackhat tricks that will get me banned. Just wondering if there is a simple way to have googlebot see the header as text (not ALT img txt) so the site does not appear to have changed at all. (It hasnt, I only am changing the graphics and colors of background, and header image for better branding.
Technical SEO | | getbigyadig0 -
What is the best top menu linking structure (for SEO) for my site: A or B?
I don't know if these two scenarios are any different as far as SEO is concerned, but I wanted to ask to get an opinion. On my website: http://www.rainchainsdirect.com you can see there is a top menu with "About" "Info" "Questions" etc. Some of these links lead to further pages that are essentially a indeces for multiple further links. My question is: in terms of SEO, is it better to A) have all links (that are now on the pages that the menu links lead to) displayed in a drop down menu directly from the top menu (and bypassing an intermediate page) or B) to have it as it is now where you have to click to an intermediate page (like "rain chain info") to get access to the links (and not have such a large drop down menu) Is there a difference in terms of SEO? In terms of useability it almost seems like a toss up between the two, so if there were better SEO value to one of the other, then I would choose that one. By the way, I know that the way it is structured now is strange, where there is only one drop down that leads to the same page as the top menu item, but that will be fixed, fyi. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | csblev0