Header Tags
-
Ok so I am writing different pages and the first heading is an H3 just because I wanted to it be a certain size. Then as you see the content, I have an H1 tag.
Example page: http://www.oxfordmshomes.net/condos/acadia-court-Oxford-MS
you can see that "Acadia First" is the first thing you see on the page and it uses an H3 element.
Long story short, my hierarchy is wrong. Does this have any negative effect on my SEO efforts?
-
Order of heading tags is important... use CSS to control size & tags other than headings!
Think of a HTML doc as you would any other academic document..
Animals
Cats
Red Cats
Pink Cats
Dogs
Round Dogs
Square Dogs
..you get the idea
-
You have links in your menu, that is enough.
as for you hierarchy, you should be ok, as a H1 is what it is, but if you don’t use a h1 SE will look for the first emphasized tag to use as a heading so its not conclusive.
Try using html5 to mark out your page.
I would use the hgroup and article tags.<hgroup class="title">
Perth SEO Company
Local SEO Perth Western Australia
</hgroup>
Blah blah blah
It is not sure if SE's are up to date on html5 yet, but they will do so,
make sure on the page specific content is in the article tag
-
ah yes. I did this because I wrote a page for every subdivision in my town. I don't really know a better way to do it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I thought that It was always good to have a link to a page and not have the page just floating on the site with no links. Any help is greatly appreciated.
-
There must be 100 links commented out in your code... Here is an example... <a href="[http://www.oxfordmshomes.net/condos/a-southern-place-Oxford-MS](view-source:http://www.oxfordmshomes.net/condos/a-southern-place-Oxford-MS)" class="main"> <span>A SOUTHERN PLACEspan>a>li>
-
I'm not sure what you mean by link tags commented out? Do you just mean regarding under my subdivision tabs? Thanks Egol
-
The short answer... I don't know for sure.
Clarified answer... At the present time I do not believe that there is a huge difference in how Google and other search engines treats H1, H2 and H3. However, just to have things straight... I would make that
Acadia Court an H1. You can change the appearance using css.
You didn't ask but when I looked at the code of your page I was shocked to see so many link tags commented out. I would be getting rid of those if this was my site.
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
-
Is a canonical tag required for already redirecting URLs?
Hi everyone, One of our websites was changed to non-www to www. The non-www pages were then redirected to avoid duplicate issue. Moz and Screaming Frog flagged a number of these redirected pages as missing canonical tags. Is the canonical tag still required for pages already redirecting? Or is it detecting another possible duplicate page that we haven't redirected yet? Also, the rankings for this website isn't improving despite having us optimising these pages as best as we could. I'm wondering if this canonical tag issue may be affecting it. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | nhhernandez0 -
Is there an percentage of duplicate content required before you should use a canonical tag?
Is there a percentage (approximate or exact) of duplicate content you should have before you use a canonical tag? Similarly how does Google handle canonical tags if the pages aren’t 100% duplicate? I've added some background and an example below; Nike Trainer model 1 – has an overview page that also links to a sub-page about cushioning, one about Gore-Tex and one about breathability. Nike Trainer model 2,3,4,5 – have an overview page that also links to sub-pages page about cushioning , Gore-Tex and breathability. In each of the sub-pages the URL is a child of the parent so a distinct page from each other e.g. /nike-trainer/model-1/gore-tex /nike-trainer/model-2/gore-tex. There is some differences in material composition, some different images and of course the product name is referred multiple times. This makes the page in the region of 80% unique.
Technical SEO | | punchseo0 -
Meta description tag problems according to an seo tool
hi, my site is www.in2town.co.uk I am using an seo tool to check on my site and how to improve the seo. The tool is here. http://www.juxseo.com/report/view/51ebf9deab900 for some reason it has brought up errors, it claims i have not got a meta description even though i have and have doubled checked in my source code the errors it has brought up is as follows, and i would like to know if this is a fault of the seo tool or am i doing something wrong Does the description tag exist?0/1 <a id="sub_toggle_12" class="sub_toggle contract_sub"></a>Hide Info Description Tag: Explanation: The meta description tag does not help your rankings but it is your opportunity to encourage prospects to click. The meta description should describe the content of your web page, include a strong call to action, and include your keyword. Action: Make sure you are using the meta description tag. It is found in the section of your page. checkboxIs there only one description tag?0/2<a id="sub_toggle_13" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More InfocheckboxIs your description less than 156 characters?0/1<a id="sub_toggle_14" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More InfocheckboxIs your keyword in the description tag?0/3 <a id="sub_toggle_15" class="sub_toggle expand_sub"></a>More Info it also says about the canocial tag which it claims i have more than one Is the canonical tag optmized? Is there only one canonical tag?0/4 <a id="sub_toggle_10" class="sub_toggle contract_sub"></a>Hide Info Explanation: You only need one of these to direct a search engine. Don't muddy the waters. Action: Make sure you only have one canonical tag. This only applies if you use the canonical tag. any help and advice would be greatregards
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Two META Robots tags on a page - which will win?
Hi, Does anybody know which meta-robots tag will "win" if there is more than one on a page? The situation:
Technical SEO | | jmueller
our CMS is not very flexible and so we have segments of META-Tags on the page that originate from templates.
Now any author can add any meta-tag from within his article-editor.
The logic delivering the pages does not care if there might be more than one meta-robots tag present (one from template, one from within the article). Now we could end up with something like this: Which one will be regarded by google & co?
First?
Last?
None? Thanks a lot,
Jan0 -
Is the " meta content tag" important?
I am currently trying to optimize my companies website and I noticed that meta content is exactly the same for all of the pages on our website. Isn't this problematic? The actual content on the webpage is not the same and a lot of the pages don't have these keywords in the content.
Technical SEO | | AubbiefromAubenRealty0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Best practice: unique meta descriptions on blog 'tag' pages
Hi everyone, I'm curious, are there best practices for introducing unique meta descriptions on blog tag pages (I'm using wordpress)? For instance, using platinum seo, on an original post, the meta description is either the excerpt or a specified custom sentence. It doesn't appear that platinum seo allows for custom descriptions on tag pages. Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks! Peter
Technical SEO | | peterdbaron1 -
Optimal / Best Practice Title tag
Hi Guys, Am I write in saying google will take / create many variable from your title tag? Graphic, Web Design and Online Marketing in Ireland | Company Name results: Graphic Design, Web design, Web design in Ireland, Online Marketing in Ireland, Online Marketing, Graphic and Web Design, etc etc. (plus lots of long tail there as well). Would this be considered the optimal way as 'Design' is the common denominator for Graphic & Web. Then Ireland can be common to every other keyword such as Graphic design, Web design, Online Marketing. (in ireland) The reason why I ask is: lately I've notice title tags being stuffed with keywords and don't actually read correctly in the SERP My suggested way could have more benefits plus it reads well. Your thoughts, thanks.
Technical SEO | | Socialdude0