**and spam**
-
Hi,
The web-designer would like to make us use this CSS-class: or
**, in order to keep all over the same size of the titles on a page.
Is it a problem for the search engine (like spam)? I haven’t ever use this CSS-class and that’s why I can’t see if it is good or bad.
Has someone already used it?
Thank you in advance!**
-
You've also got to imagine that would be pointless from an end user perspective.
-
Should be only one H1 and it should appear in the top as the title. You can style it however you want but my thinking is if you style it to look like text and hide it in content somewhere Google may eventually take issue with playing that kind of schtick.
-
There should be no problem with seo, but make sure not everything is marked as h2 =P
-
Whilst it is important to get your ordering correct and use appropriate h1,h2 etc tags relevant to their page position - it is not an issue to style these tags in whatever way you like.
If you want to you could have your first one be a h1 and style it like a h2 and your second be a h2 and style it like a h1 - that's all fine.
What is bad is to have your first one a h2 and style it like a h1 and so forth.
-
It won't have any impact defining the format of a class in terms of SEO as he is still defining the actual headers in the code. I have defined h1 and h2 headers as the same class before and had no issue with decent rankings for that content...
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
-
Should you disavow backlinks even if your site spam score is 1%?
With a site spam score of 1% as indicated by Moz, is it worth the effort or necessary to disavow backlinks in Google? Even at just 1%, could those spammy links still hurt a site's Google search rankings, even in the slightest of ways? As it relates to disavowing backlinks, everything I read about is only related to sites with high spam scores. But what about sites with low spam scores? I'm interested in best practices for dealing with spammy links, regardless of one's site spam score. Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndrewOrr100 -
Is a rootserver that has previously been used for porn and spam a problem for SEO?
As we found out via Alexa we are hosting our website on a server that has been used under the same IP heavily mostly for pornsites. Will this become a problem for our webproject? By the way: We are not in the porn-sector. We are an NGO with an alternative social media project for a better world. Thanks for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RWW0 -
Pure spam Manual Action by Google
Hello Everyone, We have a website http://www.webstarttoday.com. Recently, we have received manual action from Google says "Pages on this site appear to use aggressive spam techniques such as automatically generated gibberish, cloaking, scraping content from other websites, and/or repeated or egregious violations of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines." . Google has given an example http://smoothblog.webstarttoday.com/. The nature of the business of http://www.webstarttoday.com is to creating sub-domains (website builder). Anyone can register and create sub-domains. My questions are: What are the best practices in case if someone is creating sub-domain for webstarttoday.com? How can I revoke my website from this penalty? What should i do with other hundreds of sub-domains those are already created by third party like http://smoothblog.webstarttoday.com? . Why these type of issues don't come with WordPress or weebly. ? Regards, Ruchi
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RuchiPardal0 -
Question spam malware causing many indexed pages
Hey Mozzers, I was speaking with a friend today about a site that he has been working on that was infected when he began working on it. Here (https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:themeliorist.ca) you can see that the site has 4400 indexed pages, but if you scroll down you will see some pages such as /pfizer-viagra-samples/ or /dapoxetine-kentucky/. All of these pages are returning 404 errors, and I ran it through SEO spider just to see if any of these pages would show up, and they don't. This is not an issue for a client, but I am just curious why these pages are still hanging around in the index. Maybe others have experience this issue too. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evan890 -
How to remove seemingly untouchable link spam
Hey Mozzers, I have been struggling with this issue, and I am hoping someone can help. I have a number of bad/spammy links to my site. We have never engaged in "bad SEO", but an old subdomain received a number of spammy blog comments, and everything seemed to escalate from there. We have removed a subdomain that received all of the bad links from our DNS settings (about a year ago), but these links are still there when using Ahrefs or MajesticSEO. I don't think we have been penalized for these links, but I would just like to clean them up because, well, it's the right thing to do. How does one do this when these sites seem so untouchable. Either they are from China, Russia, Denmark, abandoned in 2009, etc. If I look for someone to contact, I can't seem to find anyone to even email. Suggestions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evan890 -
The "webmaster" disallowed all ROBOTS to fight spam! Help!!
One of the companies I do work for has a magento site. I am simply the SEO guy and they work the website through some developers who hold access to their systems VERY tightly. Using Google Webmaster Tools I saw that the robots.txt file was blocking ALL robots. I immediately e-mailed out and received a long reply about foreign robots and scrappers slowing down the website. They told me I would have to provide a list of only the good robots to allow in robots.txt. Please correct me if I'm wrong.. but isn't Robots.txt optional?? Won't a bad scrapper or bot still bog down the site? Shouldn't that be handled in httaccess or something different? I'm not new to SEO but I'm sure some of you who have been around longer have run into something like this and could provide some suggestions or resources I could use to plead my case! If I'm wrong.. please help me understand how we can meet both needs of allowing bots to visit the site but prevent the 'bad' ones. Their claim is the site is bombarded by tons and tons of bots that have slowed down performance. Thanks in advance for your help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JoshuaLindley0 -
Would be the network site map page considered link spam
In the course of the last 18 months my sites have lost from 50 to 70 percent of traffic. Never have used any tricks, just simple white-hat SEO. Anyway, I am now trying to fix things that hadn't been a problem before all those Google updates, but apparently now are. Would appreciate any help.. I used to have a network site map page on everyone of my sites (about 30 sites). It basically would be a page called 'our network' and it'll show a list of links to all of my other sites. These pages were indexed, had decent PR and didn't seem to cause any problem. Here's an example of one of them:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | romanbond
http://www.psoriasisguide.ca/psoriasis_scg.html In the light of Panda and Penguin and all these 'bad links' I decided to get rid of most of them. My traffic didn't recover at all, it actually went further down. Not sure if there is any connection to what I'd done. So, the question is: In your opinion/experience, do you think such network sitemap pages could be causing penalties for link spam?0 -
Photo Gallery marked as spam???
Hi all, we recently launched some articles with photo galleries. Our CMS produces a single URL for each photo you click--> www.domain.com/article-url/photogallery/1, www.domain.com/article-url/photogallery/2 and so forth... We have 6-15 photos in our galleries. Each photo has a caption which contains 1-3 sentences. We do not advertise on our pages, so these gallery pages just contain of the top navigation, sidebar, footer, picture and the caption. My question: Google is indexing these URLs, do you think that they will be considered spammy, as there is almost no content on these pages? Should we noindex them? Or canonical them to the article URL? Or write more content to each photo and let them be indexed??? Thanx....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | accessKellyOCG0