Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Does Google Understand H2 As Subtitle?
-
I use some HTML 5 tags on my custom template. I implement
<header class="entry-header-outer">
Flavour & Chidinma – 40 Yrs
40 Yrs by Flavour & Chidinma
</header>
html code.
h1 tag serves as the title, while h2 tag servers as the subtitle of the post.
Take a look at it here: https://xclusiveloaded.com/flavour-chidinma-40-yrs/
I want to know if it's ok or should I remove the h2 tag. Guys, what is your thoughts?
-
I don't know what I am doing wrong, my website headings and subtitles are fine and after doing keyword research and writing content that I am supposed to rank for it doesn't rank at all. For example How to open a Payoneer account in Nigeria am not ranking for it.
- topic:timeago_earlier,2 months
-
I believe google understands H2s as a subtitle normally and this helps with your page's readability and optimization. I use it here as well and I don't have any issues.
- topic:timeago_earlier,about a year
-
Thanks for sharing.
- topic:timeago_earlier,4 months
-
Nice Advice i think I also have take not so as to work on the two below links
-
Nice Advice i think I also have take not so as to work on the two below links
- topic:timeago_earlier,11 months
-
It was great! Now I will implement AudioObject schema for my MP3 files.
I've learned that filling the MP3 file Meta is important to avoid piracy and also helps to get many people to listen to the audio file.
I'm glad you like the song
-
Yes Google understands H2s as a subtitle and this helps with your page's readability and optimization. I would not remove them, and instead see if there are any opportunities to optimize them with target keywords or LSI keywords.
-
Yeah Google is perfectly able to interpret an H2 as a sub-heading. It's more of a directive than an absolute rule, for example if you crammed loads of H2s into your footer and made them really small, Google would be able to tell that the H2 was being deployed illegitimately
In your case you seem to be using the H2 correctly. I think it adds some space to add a little extra context to your pages, I think that's a really good idea! I might use the space a little differently though
This is what you have:
H1: Flavour & Chidinma – 40 Yrs
H2: 40 Yrs by Flavour & Chidinma - Mp3 Download
They essentially say exactly the same thing just with the difference of "MP3 Download"
I might use the H1 more as the news heading and the H2 for the additional context of what exactly the reader will be getting
H1: Flavour and Chidinma Release 40yrs Everlasting EP
H2: 40 Yrs by Flavour & Chidinma - Mp3 Download & Video
I gave the page a schema scan:
Nice usage of Article schema. You could also think about using AudioObject schema for the MP3 download. Google have recently come out and said that whilst some schemas don't result in visual changes in the SERPs, they're still a good structural framework for Google to work with (in terms of contextualising information) so usually I always push for the maximum Schema.org implementation possible
Did you know that MP3 files also contain their own Meta data, inside of the file? You can inspect and modify the Meta data with industry-standard audio-editing software, or simple applications such as MP3Tag
This is what your MP3 file looks like in terms of the internal MP3-tagging Meta:
Screenshot: https://d.pr/i/iUxtv0.png
I have boxed in red the field "Album Artist" which has not been filled out. Most media players and media apps, actually categorise music into artists by the "Album Artist" field and not by the "Artist" field (makes no sense, I know!)
You might consider copying the Artist text into the Album Artist field and re-saving the file, then re-uploading it. There are a lot of sites that illegally rip music and upload it in hopes of search rankings and ad-revenue. Much of the time, those sites fail to correctly fill out their MP3 file Meta (sometimes everything is 100% blank) and that's often a piracy signal
I don't think that's what your doing, but it might pay to verify you have correctly amended MP3 Meta before uploading the files to your site (especially as a UX thing, if people download the MP3 and then can't find it on their media player then it won't get many listens)
Fun track by the way, thanks for the listen
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | May 3, 2023, 3:00 PM | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Updating Old Content at Scale - Any Danger from a Google Penalty/Spam Perspective?
We've read a lot about the power of updating old content (making it more relevant for today, finding other ways to add value to it) and republishing (Here I mean changing the publish date from the original publish date to today's date - not publishing on other sites). I'm wondering if there is any danger of doing this at scale (designating a few months out of the year where we don't publish brand-new content but instead focus on taking our old blog posts, updating them, and changing the publish date - ~15 posts/month). We have a huge archive of old posts we believe we can add value to and publish anew to benefit our community/organic traffic visitors. It seems like we could add a lot of value to readers by doing this, but I'm a little worried this might somehow be seen by Google as manipulative/spammy/something that could otherwise get us in trouble. Does anyone have experience doing this or have thoughts on whether this might somehow be dangerous to do? Thanks Moz community!
On-Page Optimization | Mar 15, 2017, 3:11 PM | paulz9990 -
Google Console returning 0 pages as being indexed
HI there, I submitted my site notebuster.net to Search Console over a month ago and it is showing 0 pages as being indexed under the index status report. I know this isn't right as I can see that in google alone by typing in (site:notebusters.net) there are 113 pages indexed. Any idea why this might be? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | May 26, 2016, 10:13 PM | CosiCrawley0 -
Any idea how Google is doing this? Is it schematic? http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/28/google-adds-full-restaurant-menus-to-its-search-results-pages/
Google is now showing menus on select searches. Any idea how they are getting this information? I would like to make sure my clients get visibility this way.
On-Page Optimization | Mar 27, 2014, 10:30 PM | Ron_McCabe0 -
How to properly remove pages and a category from Google's index
I want to remove this category http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ and all the pages in that category (e.g. http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/7386.html ) from Google's index. I used the following string in the "Reomval URS" section in Google Webmaster Tools: http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/* is that correct or I better use http://www.webdesign.org/web-design-news-all/ ? Thanks in advance.
On-Page Optimization | Sep 20, 2012, 9:43 AM | VinceWicks0 -
Google cached snapshots and last indexed
My question is I noticed today that the snap shots of my main pages were outdated. About a month. Then I clicked on the "Learn More" link about cahced images and Google says "Google crawls the web and takes snapshots of each page. When you click Cached, you'll see the webpage as it looked when we last indexed it." I know this sounds really dumb, but does that really mean the last time Google indexed that page? So the changes I have made since then have not been taken yet?
On-Page Optimization | Jul 25, 2012, 5:11 PM | cbielich0 -
How long does it take for Google to see Changes to a site?
Hi, I have a low PR site (PR 1) that I am starting to work on. Ingeneral when you make changes to my site how long would it take Google to recognize and index those changes? The reason I am wondering is because the site I am working on had a lot of duplicate content (around 700 pages), I got rid of it all, but I wasn't sure how long it would take Google to spider all these pages and re-index them since the site is low PR. Thanks, Ken
On-Page Optimization | Mar 7, 2012, 7:42 PM | Jason_3420 -
Is giving away something for a Google Review bad?
I have a friend whose client is giving away something for free if you leave a Google Review for his site. I recall that being not well liked by Google and could potentially end up in a Penalty. The site is ranking really poorly in Google but well in Yahoo/Bing so I am wondering if that is what happened. What are you opinions?
On-Page Optimization | Jun 13, 2011, 11:56 AM | netviper0
