Site Mark-up is Abnormally Small
-
My site www.brightonsoundsystem.co.uk has been optimised for speed so I have minimised the code needed.
Now if I put it through the OSE spam analysis it has a flag for "Site Mark-up is Abnormally Small". What ratio of visible text compared to mark-up code is being used to trigger this flag. Also as this is the only flag I have is ti worth the time fixing.
-
Thanks Michael,
My gut would agree. It should be looked at in context and thanks for confirming that for me.
Doesn't help when clients look at the tool though.
-
This code ratio metric is merely one of many issues to trigger a spam "conviction". It would seem logical that if you write junk-free code and raise few to no other flags, it should be ignored.
Surely if lean code alone were a violation - there would be no Google page speed tool!
-
Sorry but how does this response help? You've just explained how the tool works which we already kinda know. I want to know how to resolve the issue or if it can be ignored.
-
PS - to all those wondering what the amount of stars under a poster's picture means......the more stars they have = the less paid work they have & more free time they have to hang out and yak!!
Ergo - the less stars you have, the busier you are!! Right, Michael ,-]
-
Sometimes you just have to trust your gut! Why would Google create the enormously nit picking Page Speed Tool - then penalize you for following their dictates? I draw a line at certain reasonable levels - and still rank in the top percentiles. If I were new to the game I would be torn between thinking I needed to cut more code for Google - or fatten up to pass Moz's spam-ometer!
The bandwidth load on Google has grown to sublime proportions - it is in their best interest that we pare down the code - to counteract the monumental glut of user generated fluff.
http://search-engine-upgrade.com/google-data-center.htm
Moz tools have made me look like a guru to my client base - BUT - since I know I am not a spammer, I will choose to ignore this spam score and follow what Google clearly encourages.
-
I'm just confused!!!
Most advice appears to say get your text to code ratio over 25%, but then one of the Moz spam factors is you have too much text - they can't both be right!!!!
HELP!!!!!!!
Glenn
-
Damned if you don't - damned if you do - what a nutty game! This is a total surprise. I have been building websites since 1994 and I continued building lean code when bandwidth went up. I don't use CMS - all hand coded asp or, less frequently, PHP. My newer sites are all in the 90's in page speed.
Now I am penalized for this? Shouldn't that message say "Congratulations, Site Mark-up is** Exceptionally **Small"?
-
Hey William,
This is Michael from the Moz Help Team and I'm happy to help out here! Our tool does not offer an actual ratio result so I couldn't tell you exact numbers here. Essentially we take the HTML and "clean it up" by removing certain markup like comments and white space, etc. Then we do the same for the text on the page and from there our tool trigger's a flag to indicate that the ratio is a factor but not to reveal the exact ratio.
For more information on the spam score tool, check out the most recent Whiteboard Friday in which Rand speaks to "Understanding and Applying Moz's Spam Score Metric".
I hope this helps!
-
That is the only spam flag I get as well. The explanation is that: "Non-spam sites tend to invest in rich user experiences with CSS, Javascript and extensive mark-up. Accordingly, a large ratio of text to mark-up is a spam signal." I am not too worried about it--a fast site makes for a very good user experience, I think.
-
Cheers. As you know it is quite hard work to get a good site with small mark-up. With all the fuss Google makes with Pagespeed it seem contradictory that this is a spam flag.
-
"Site Mark-up is Abnormally Small"
Nice work. In the opinion of many people, this is a good thing. I want my mark-up to be small too.
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
-
Unsolved Issue with former site redirect
Hello, After 2 months of starting a new service with a new domain name and a rather flat curve, I decided to invest in auditing tools. To my surprise, when analyzing links with 'Link Explorer', I got the following warning : "You entered the URL crapahute.com which redirects to www.krapahute.com. Click here to analyze www.krapahute.com instead."... So I understand I bought a domain name that was previously in use, 8 years ago. And logically, when they moved from crapahute.com to krapahute.com, the former site owners set a (probably 401) redirect between their former name and their new one. Probably that in the last 8 years they dropped crapahute.com since I was able to buy the domain name last year. I can't understand the warning I'm receiving. since I thought this redirect would become inactive when they dropped the domain name. On the contrary, if I analyze the backlinks to krapahute.com I can indeed see : crapahute.com [no anchor text] 3 2 0 --
Link Explorer | | x_all
redirect More Info
Date first seen - Date lost - Link target
2016-09-05 - N/A - www.krapahute.com So my question is : where is this warning coming from ? I performed some nslookup and dig on my domain and their's just to find out that every thing seems to look normal. Meanwhile, if I type "crapahute" in Google (and most other search engines), my site arrives in 12th page (!), and if I type "crapahute.com", the site "krapahute.com" appears first. Thank you for those reading up to that point ! Any hint on what could cause this ? Should I change of domain name ? Thank you !0 -
What do we know about Open Site Explorer?
Any clear answer for this result? Google get penalty from Google for it's own website? Please refer to the attached picture below. vsgKw
Link Explorer | | BBT-Digital0 -
Difference on full and partial URLs in Open Site Explorer?
Hi, I am pretty new to SEO and it might show. Here is my question, regarding the difference on "full and partial" urls in Open Site Explorer (OSP). That is, the difference on http://www.mywebsite.com and http://mywebsite.com. I get very similar results for the two variations, but not exactly the same. That suggest to me that OSP most of the time find the same links regardless of whether the url put into the search field is full or partial. But not all the time. Can anyone clarify? Thx in advance
Link Explorer | | plovski0 -
Why is the company reference of "designed by" with a link back my web development site not being indexed as a link?
Using the Mozbar I am analyzing my links and my competitors links. I am noticing other web developer sites are getting credit/index links from all their client's websites with the "designed by...." link in the footer. However, for me I only see one "inbound link" in the link analysis report. Sometimes I notice a company getting several inbound links on one site they built. I have built many other sites and have my company link below on all the footers. Why are the other sites not showing up as "inbound links" on the link analysis report? Thanks for your help! Nikki
Link Explorer | | NikkiPatt0 -
Open Site Explorer metrics report says we have 9 linking root domains, but way more than 7 are listen. What gives?
When I run a report on my website in OSE (SelectAccount" metrics tells me we have 7 "established" root domains and 9 total links. But the detailed report below has many dozens of links. What is metrics telling me?
Link Explorer | | SelectAccount0 -
Open Site Explorer Question
Hello Mozers. It has been a while 🙂 OK - I run an open site explorer report, toggle over to 'Linking Domains' because I am more interested in the number of actual websites that link to my client rather than the number of links my client has (and of course what websites are linking) and although I have been doing this for years there is one little thing I am a bit confused about. The report shows (from left to right) the 'Linking Root Domain", the "Domain Authority" for the linking domain and then the 'Number of Linking Root Domains" for each 'Linking Root Domain" My question is (rather stupid, I am sure) is the number of linking root domains for each linking root domain the number of websites linking to them OR the number of websites to which they link?
Link Explorer | | Vizergy1 -
Repeated mysterious 404's from ancient site structure killing my rankings
Several years ago I changed my site structure to go from a flash based site to a blog based wordpress site. After doing so I went from page 1 to page 30 for my relevant search terms. I have employed people to help me track down the problem and I believe that they have narroed it to the existance of 404's being created from some unknown internal source. I have been for years getting links like this... <colgroup><col width="792"></colgroup>
Link Explorer | | dfphotographer.com
| http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/?share=facebook http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/charisma-and-steve-301/?share=email http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-04-2/?share=email http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-12-2/ http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-13-2/ http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-13-2/?share=facebook http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-13-2/feed/ http://www.dfphotographer.com.au/brisbaneweddingphotographer/2011/10/brisbane-wedding-photographer-charisma-and-steve-victoria-park-brisbane/photography-brisbane-16-2/?share=email | ......regularly showing in webmaster tools, (this is from a top pages report from MOZ where there are hundreds also shown). When I do a moz crawl of the site, none of these links show up. Therefore I have no way of finding the source of these links (they also do not show me the source in WMT as they should). We have completely cleared the site and rebuilt it and although it is still only a couple of weeks in it still does not appear to have stopped them. Does anyone have any way of helping me find the source of these mysterious 404's?0 -
Why do 0 back links show for my website in Open Site Explorer?
I've read and understand that all back link tools results will vary from one another but Open Site Explorer and some others find 0 linking to my site. Webmaster tools show 46 back links. Is this because they are all "no follow"? I'm trying to get a grip on SEO but am very confused from the get go. Thanks, Todd
Link Explorer | | Grateful_Monk0