Google & Tabbed Content
-
Hi
I wondered if anyone had a case study or more info on how Google treats content under tabs?
We have an ecommerce site & I know it is common to put product content under tabs, but will Google ignore this?
Becky
-
Hi
It's actually worked for us on certain pages, I don't like to just throw content under a tab on the page, but for now it's helping whilst we work on the design of the pages.
I think they need improvement from a UX perspective still but for now it's helping.
Thanks!
-
Hi,
How did the test go overall. Did you add any more pages into the test?
Would love to get more insight into this theory.
Thanks
-
Hi
Thanks for your input
I hadn't seen that article! I have a competitor doing it who seem to rank really well, despite the fact they don't have great backlinks, the only thing I can see they're doing is tabbed content. So I've tried it for a few pages and it seems to be helping.
Do you think think interaction with the tabbed content could affect how Google ranks the page? So if no one clicks on the tab, it may be ignored?
Would love to know everyone's thoughts on the mobile/desktop question you raised too
Thanks!
-
Hey guys!
So I manage a site called ProjectManager.com and we're currently redesigning our homepage. The design we're going with has a big section with content hidden behind tabs and I was initially concerned about this content being "discounted" as John Mueller said back in 2014 (http://youtu.be/tFSI4cpJX-I?t=10m55s).
I then came across the below post in SE journal that cites a tweet by Gary Ilyes saying in response to mobile content hidden for ux being discounted "no, in the mobile-first world content hidden for ux should have full weight". My question to the group would be, do you think desktop tabbed content is still discounted whereas mobile tabbed content has full weight? I actually just tweeted at Gary with the same question so will post again if I hear back.
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-says-now-ok-put-content-behind-tabs/178020/
Also think it would be cool to update this thread with the most updated info as this page is ranking 3rd for the query "google content behind tabs".
Appreciate the help!
-
amazon, zappos, walmart, microsoft store - many ecommerce sites don't use tabs.
A common workaround seems to be to have "tabbed navigation" but instead of toggling visibility, it scrolls down to the corresponding section.
-
Hi,
Yes I agree, does anyone have any examples of great product pages which don't use tabs?
A lot of sites do use the tabs to make it easier for customers
-
Your link goes to a login page. I think you meant this: http://www.seochat.com/c/a/search-engine-optimization-help/hidden-text-in-websites/
Google is most likely smart enough to know these tricks, so I wouldn't waste time by implementing various CSS layer tricks. Try to follow the webmaster guidelines as much as possible.
-
Hi
To add to this, I have been presented with a work around to this:
Hidden Text in Websites - SEO Chat instead of having hidden div's to use the z-index and absolute positioning css features to workaround this problem mostly because menus are used a lot in that way, so, search engines apparently still index these words.
"Another way to hide text from the user is to put text in the Back or Front layer instead of the immediately visible layer. The third dimension of viewable screen is the Z-index. The first two dimensions are (X) and (Y), which indicate “left to right” and “up to down” respectively. The Z-index indicates “back to front” for layers of Web pages. Using the Z-index, Web designers can hide text in the previous layer.
These methods are also used in creating of menus or navigation bars in websites, so search engines index them.
Is this seen as a spammy work around?
-
Brilliant thank you for your comments
-
According to the updated Google webmaster guidelines (Jan 2016), tabbed or not immediately visible content will have even less value than previously.
"Make your site's important content visible by default. Google is able to crawl HTML content hidden inside navigational elements such as tabs or expanding sections, however we consider this content less accessible to users, and believe that you should make your most important information visible in the default page view."
Summary of changes here: https://www.seroundtable.com/changes-in-the-google-webmaster-guidelines-21551.html
-
+1 to Oleg's response. Google is absolutely moving towards ignoring content that is not immediately visible.
-
General consensus is that it is still usually indexed/ranked but the value is diminished (and they may be going in the direction of completely ignoring it). See this post: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html
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
-
My site dissapeared from google search...
I was ranked for the keyword 'airbnb clone' in 3rd page, my url is http://www.claydip.com/airbnb.html. But today it was not found in the search results...i dont understand...i checked with google webmaster tools, there is no errors in on page optimization....Please help...
Algorithm Updates | | claydip0 -
Help for a webstore with Google Warnings for Watermark Images and Panda
I have not had too much experience with helping websites that have been hit by Panda - any tried and tested formulas I can pass to website owner would be great. He does not want to reveal domain name - its in the area of children/baby products 'Web site featured on page 1 of Google search results for many years (website 5 years old- Australian domain) . In April/May 2014, Google suspended our Google Shopping account because we used watermarks on all our images. We were advised that the suspension would remain in place indefinitely or until such time the watermarks were removed. We wrote back to Google to explain that these watermarks were put in place by our store back 2005 with the sole purpose of protecting our intellectual property. Needless to say, their attitude was unwavering. And as a result, revenue plummeted. However, the perfect storm was about to hit our store without warning. In the same month, Panda 4.0 was unleashed and our store was hit once again. This update alone reduced visitor numbers by around 50% overnight. The Panda 4.0 algorithm update was designed to target poor quality, duplicate content and unfortunately we had some of it. We have now begun creating original content with many of the new products we're uploading onto our web site. It's slow and tedious. We have modified our web site to now include a tag on a the home page (this was missing). We have removed many duplicate links from our footer (it was too big and contained hundreds of links that were also repeated from the header). We introduced a blog and we have engaged the services of a local seo company to disavow any bad backlinks and add missing or improve existing content to category and brand pages. No improvement in our situation is yet visible and with Christmas just 3 months away, poor sales during our 'bread and butter' period will mean even tougher times for our store in 2015. ANY PANDA EXPERTS who can help please email me [email protected] - looking for independent freelancers rather than agencies
Algorithm Updates | | GardenBeet0 -
Google indexing site content that I did not wish to be indexed
Hi is it pretty standard for Google to index content that you have not specifically asked them to index i.e. provided them notification of a page's existence. I have just been alerted by 'Mention' about some new content that they have discovered, the page is on our site yes and may be I should have set it to NO INDEX but the page only went up a couple of days ago and I was making it live so that someone could look at it and see how the page was going to look in its final iteration. Normally we go through the usual process of notifying Google via GWMT, adding it to our site map.xml file, publishing it via our G+ stream and so on. Reviewing our Analytics it looks like there has been no traffic to this page yet and I know for a fact there are no links to this page. I am surprised at the speed of the indexation, is it a example of brand mention? Where an actual link is now no longer required? Cheers David
Algorithm Updates | | David-E-Carey0 -
Does anyone have an idea of the benefits of Google Analytics Premium?
We've been having a discussion about the GA Premium service here in our office, trying to weigh up the pro's and con's... For the majority all it seems you gain access to is more support from google. We're trying to find out if that is the case or if you gain extra information, such as and insight into the search terms who must not be named. Of course i'm talking about the (Not Set) data... This section of data is ever increasing, yes i know we can access certain terms through webmasters but it was so much easier (in the good ol' days) when all the data was under one roof! Any thought opinions or even more questions would be greatly appreciated, i look forward to your responses. Anthony
Algorithm Updates | | Kal-SEO0 -
Fetch as Google - removes start words from Meta Title ?? Help!
Hi all, I'm experiencing some strange behaviour with Google Webmaster Tools. I noticed that some of our pages from our ecom site were missing start keywords - I created a template for meta titles that uses Manufacturer - Ref Number - Product Name - Online Shop; all trimmed under 65 chars just in case. To give you an idea, an example meta title looks like:
Algorithm Updates | | bjs2010
Weber 522053 - Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop The strange behaviour is if I do a "Fetch as Google" in GWT, no problem - I can see it pulls the variables and it's ok. So I click submit to index. Then I do a google site:URL search, to see what it has indexed, and I see the meta description has changed (so I know it's working), but the meta title has been cut so it looks like this:
Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop So I am confused - why would Google cut off some words at start of meta title? Even after the Fetch as Googlebot looks perfectly ok? I should point out that this method works perfect on our other pages, which are many hundreds - but it's not working on some pages for some weird reason.... Any ideas?0 -
Google Reconsideration - To do or not to do?
We haven't been manually penalized by Google yet but we have had our fair share of things needing to be fixed; malware, bad links, lack/if no content, lack-luster UX, and issues with sitemaps & redirects. Should we still submit a reconsideration even though we haven't had a direct penalty? Does hurt us to send it?
Algorithm Updates | | GoAbroadKP0 -
Can AJAX implementation affect the rankings in Google Panda?
Hi there, I have the following situation with one of our job sites. We migrate the site to a new application, which is better from design point of view and also usability. For this we use a lot AJAX especially in searches. So every time a user is filtering down their search new results will be shown on the page, at the same url and with no page load. But, having this implementation. affected Bounce rate - which increased from 38% to nearly 60%, PI/visits - which are now half, at 3 and also Avg Time on Site is half that is used to be coming to 2,5 min from nearly 6 min. From Rand post, it is clearly that the content is very important in Google Panda, and all of these parameters we should consider, as it is telling the quality of the content. So, my question will be, can this site be hit by Panda updates (maybe later on) because Bounce Rate, PI/Visits and Avg Time on site, decreased in such way? At the moment we don't measure the Ajax impresion, but as I understood that we can do that though virtual pages in GA, does anyone of you have the experience how to handle this? Won't be this an artificial increase? Thanks, Irina
Algorithm Updates | | InformMedia0 -
Is this the best way to get rid of low quality content?
Hi there, after getting hit by the Panda bear (30% loss in traffic) I've been researching ways to get rid of low quality content. From what I could find the best advise seemed to be a recommendation to use google analytics to find your worst performing pages (go to traffic sources - google organic - view by landing page). Any page that hasn't been viewed more than 100 times in 18 months should be a candidate for a deletion. Out of over 5000 pages and using this report we identified over 3000 low quality pages which I've begun exporting to excel for further examination. However, starting with the worst pages (according to analytics) I'm noticing some of our most popular pages are showing up here. For example: /countries/Panama is showing up as zero views but the correct version (with the end slash) countries/Panama/ is showing up as having over 600 views. I'm not sure how google even found the former version of the link but I'm even less sure how to proceed now (the webmaster was going to put a no-follow on any crap pages but this is now making him nervous about the whole process). Some advise on how to proceed from here would be fantastico and danke <colgroup><col width="493"></colgroup>
Algorithm Updates | | BrianYork-AIM0