Hidden category content really bad?
-
Hi Guys,
I'm working with a site which has hidden based category content see:
http://i.imgur.com/Sgko2we.jpg
It seems google are still indexing these pages but i heard Google might ignore or reduce the benefit of hidden content like this.I just want to confirm if this is the case? And if this is a really bad thing for SEO?Cheers.Sgko2we.jpg
-
You are not at risk for being removed from Google's search index. In fact, Google has recently adjusted their stance on hidden content and no longer ding sites for having it **IF **it's done for the benefit of UX, specifically mobile device UX. Here's a recent statement from Google's Gary Illyes on the subject: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-content-tabs-hidden-change-22950.html
Review the layout and functionality of these pages, if you believe it's helpful for UX, then stick with it. You could also run a test where you take a sample of your category pages and unhide the content by default to see if they perform better.
-
Google does not reduce the effects of hidden copy, it is actually a huge negative. Copy like this is considered a trademark of older, spammy sites so when Google finds it (and Google will) it can reduce your page's visibility a little all the way to being a factor for your site to be delisted from Google. There is no point in placing any copy onto a page if it is not displayed in a user readable fashion.
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
-
Fix Duplicate Content Before Migration?
My client has 2 Wordpress sites (A and B). Each site is 20 pages, with similar site structures, and 12 of the pages on A having nearly 100% duplicate content with their counterpart on B. I am not sure to what extent A and/or B is being penalized for this. In 2 weeks (July 1) the client will execute a rebrand, renaming the business, launching C, and taking down A and B. Individual pages on A and B will be 301 redirected to their counterpart on C. C will have a similar site structure to A and B. I expect the content will be freshened a bit, but may initially be very similar to the content on A and B. I have 3 questions: Given that only 2 weeks remain before the switchover - is there any purpose in resolving the duplicate content between A and B prior to taking them down? Will 301 redirects from penalized pages on A or B actually hurt the ranking of the destination page on C? If a page on C has the same content as its predecessor on A or B, could it be penalized for that, even though the page on A or B has since been taken down and replaced with a 301 redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | futumara0 -
Galleries and duplicate content
Hi! I am now studing a website, and I have detected that they are maybe generating duplicate content because of image galleries. When they want to show details of some of their products, they link to a gallery url
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite
something like this www.domain.com/en/gallery/slide/101 where you can find the logotype, a full image and a small description. There is a next and a prev button over the slider. The next goes to the next picture www.domain.com/en/gallery/slide/102 and so on. But the next picture is in a different URL!!!! The problem is that they are generating lots of urls with very thin content inside.
The pictures have very good resolution, and they are perfect for google images searchers, so we don't want to use the noindex tag. I thought that maybe it would be best to work with a single url with the whole gallery inside it (for example, the 6 pictures working with a slideshow in the same url ), but as the pictures are very big, the page weight would be greater than 7 Mb. If we keep the pictures working that way (different urls per picture), we will be generating duplicate content each time they want to create a gallery. What is your recommendation? Thank you!0 -
Categories which are frequently empty
We have a medium traffic site (www.boatshed.com) which sells used boats, the site does fairly well for popular search phrases, often ranking on first page. A common way for people to search is by boat manufacturer, for example "sunseeker for sale" or "sunseeker 33 for sale". To service those searches, we have search results page with URL's like: "/used-boats-for-sale/sunseeker" and "/used-boats-for-sale/sunseeker/33" (i.e. make and model). This is fine for common makes but we have a lot of makes where we might have just one which, when sold, then leaves the page with no boats to show. It could then be just weeks till we get another one or sometimes years. Once a manufacturer has no boats for sale, we automatically remove the link to that page from the site and from the sitemap. These pages are now being flagged as soft 404s in Webmaster tools. Currently these pages still work and just show a "No results found" message. I am unsure of how to deal with these pages. Options as I see them: Add a "no-index, follow" tag to the pages and continue to remove them from the sitemap. My concern is that when we do get a new boat for sale, the page will not rank again or take a long time to be re-indexed. Add value to the 'no results found' page - for example, show listings for similar boats. If I do this (which makes sense from a usability perspective), would it be acceptable to leave these pages with an "index" tag? 404 them - my concern being this basically says "this page has been permanently removed" when actually it will probably have content again soon. 301 redirect to a page of similar boats with a message that we don't have any of that specific type at the moment.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pbscreative0 -
CSS Hidden DIVs - not collapsable content. Amber light?
I'm in the planning stage of a new ecommerce page. To reduce duplication issues, my page will be static with 20% of the page compiled of dynamic fields. So when a user selects a size, or color, the dynamic fields are the only ones that change as the rest of the content is the same. I can keep a static URL and not worry about duplication issues. Focus can be on strengthening this single URL with rich schema, reviews, and backlinks. We're going to cache a default page so for crawlers, the dynamic field doesn't appear empty. My developer said they can cache the page with all the variants of the dynamic fields, and use hidden DIVs to hide them from the user. This way, the load speed can be high, and search engines might crawl those keywords too. I'm thinking about and going.."wait a minute, that's a good idea..but would a search engine think I am hidding content and give me a penalty?". The hidden content is relevant to the page and it only appears according to the drop down to make the user experience more "friendly". What do you think? Use hidden DIV or use javascript to not allow bots to crawl the hidden data at all?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
An Unfair Content related penalty :(
Hi Guys, Google.com.au
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jarrodb
website: http://partysuppliesnow.com.au/ We had a massive drop in search queries in WMT around the 11th of september this year, I investigated and it seemed as though there were no updates around this time. Our site is only receiving branded search now - and after investigating i am led to believe that Google has mistakingly affected our website in the panda algorithm. There are no manual penalties applies on this site as confirmed by WMT. Our product descriptions are pretty much all unique but i have noticed that when typing a portion of text from these pages into google search using quotation marks, shopping affiliate sites which we use are being displayed first and our page no where to be seen or last in the results. This leads me to believe that Google thinks we have scraped the content from these sites when in actual fact they have from us. We also have G+ authorship setup. Typing a products full name into Google (tried a handful) our site is not in the top 100 or 200 at times, i think this further clarifies that we are penalised. We would really appreciate some opinions on this. Any course of actions would be great. We don't particularly want to invest in writing content again. From our point of view it looks like Google is stopping our site from ranking because it's getting mixed up with who the originator for our content is. Thanks and really appreciate it.0 -
How to promote good content?
Our team just finished a massive piece of content.. very similar to the SEOmoz Begginer's Guide to SEO, but for the salon/aesthetics industry. We have a beautifully designed 10 Chapter, 50-page PDF which will require an email form submission to download. Each chapter is optimized for specific phrases, and will be separate HTML pages that are publicly available... very much like how this is setup: http://www.seomoz.org/beginners-guide-to-seo My question is, what's the best way to promote this thing? Any specific examples would be ideal. I think blogger outreach would likely be the best approach, but is there any specific way that I should be doing this?.. Again a specific start-to-finish example is what I'm looking for here. (I've read almost every outreach post on moz, so no need to reference them) Anyone care to rattle off a list of ideas with accompanying examples? (even if they seem like no-brainers.. I'm all ears)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ATMOSMarketing560 -
How should we handle syndicated content on a partner site?
Say we have a subdomain with resources (resources.site.com) and a partner site (partner.com) and have an agreement to share content (I know - this isn't ideal but it's what I've got to work with). Please comment on the following: the use of cross-domain canonicals on "shared" articles an intro and/or conclusion paragraph that is unique on the site that re-publishes that could say something like "our partner over at resources.site.com recently published the following report ... yada, yada....." other meta tags to let Google know that we are not scraping, e.g. author tags any other steps we can take to ensure neither site gets "dinged" by the search engines. Thanks a bunch in advance! AK26
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | akim260 -
Duplicate page Content
There has been over 300 pages on our clients site with duplicate page content. Before we embark on a programming solution to this with canonical tags, our developers are requesting the list of originating sites/links/sources for these odd URLs. How can we find a list of the originating URLs? If you we can provide a list of originating sources, that would be helpful. For example, our the following pages are showing (as a sample) as duplicate content: www.crittenton.com/Video/View.aspx?id=87&VideoID=11 www.crittenton.com/Video/View.aspx?id=87&VideoID=12 www.crittenton.com/Video/View.aspx?id=87&VideoID=15 www.crittenton.com/Video/View.aspx?id=87&VideoID=2 "How did you get all those duplicate urls? I have tried to google the "contact us", "news", "video" pages. I didn't get all those duplicate pages. The page id=87 on the most of the duplicate pages are not supposed to be there. I was wondering how the visitors got to all those duplicate pages. Please advise." Note, the CMS does not create this type of hybrid URLs. We are as curious as you as to where/why/how these are being created. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dlemieux0