Off Screen Rendering & Other Tactics
-
Hi Folks,
We're currently trying to change our website search results to render in HTML in the first instance then switch off to AJAX when our user clicks on filters. But we came across an issue that diminishes the user experience, so we used this method below:
We have moved the search grid offscreen in the initial rendering because we execute a lot of Javascript that modifies the DOM within the grid. Also when a user has performed a search from within the page, the hash is updated to identify the new search terms. Because this is not sent to the server, a user who has done a search and refreshes would see incorrect search results initially and the correct search results would then replace them.
For example, on initial search a user reaches a URL akin to search.veer.com/chicken. When they perform a search from on that page, the hash gets updated tosearch.veer.com/chicken#keyword=monkey. If the user refreshes the page, the server only receives the request for chicken and then serves up the page with those results rendered on it. The Javascript then checks the hash and determines that it needs to run a different search and fires off an AJAX call to get the new results.
If we did not render the results offscreen the user would see the results for chicken (confusingly) and be able to briefly interact with them until the AJAX call returns and the results are replaced with the correct monkey results. By rendering offscreen, the initial results are not visible and the Javascript can move them immediately onscreen if there is no hash, or wait until the AJAX call returns and then rebuild the grid and move it onscreen.
Now I know that rendering text indent to -9999 is a black hat SEO tactic. But, would it be the same in this case? We're only doing this avoid bad UI. Please advise.
Also, we came across these two articles that may serve alternative options. These article state that each tactic is SEO-friendly, but I'd like to run it my the community and see if you guys agree.
http://joshblog.net/2007/08/03/make-your-rich-internet-application-seo-friendly/
http://www.inqbation.com/tools-to-increase-accessibility-in-the-web/
Thank you for your help!
-
Hi Cyrus,
Thanks for your note. So, if the subsequent links are not indexed by Google (via site command) would that be a sure way to know that the links are not getting followed through by Google?
Here's a sample:
http://search.veer.com/food is indexed and in the cache version you can see the image links and the text links below. However in the text version the same links are not visible. Now, I did a site command on the first image - http://marketplace.veer.com/stock-photo/Man-shopping-in-vegetable-department-FAN9018482?slot=01&pg=1&skeywords=search&stermids=1115 and http://marketplace.veer.com/stock-photo/Man-shopping-in-vegetable-department-FAN9018482 to ensure that all possible URL variations are covered. It looks like both links are not indexed. This leads to a conclusion that the links are not getting followed.
Please let me know if you agree. Thanks!
-
This is a grey area, but if they list the links in the text version, they are probably following those links. And if they follow them, they will follow the links on the next page, as long as that page has sufficient PageRank to justify it. So the answer is... maybe.
-
Thanks for your input. I'm learning a lot!
It's interesting because I see the links in the cache version, but not in the text version. Which version is the one I should go with in terms of ensuring that the links are found and crawled through?
Also if they aren't passing PR, anchor text weighting, and other good stuff, does it mean that they can't crawl through to the subsequent pages?
Thank you!
-
It's sort of a trick question, because we know that Google doesn't always list the non-html links it finds in the text only version of it's cache. In fact, it hardly ever does. I think the reason is that Google is still inconsistent about the type of javascript and other types of links it discovers, and so they probably record these links for discovery purposes, but they most likely don't pass much value.
So if Lynx sees the links, it's likely Google does too and is simply not reporting them. That said, if the links aren't listed in Google's cache, it's also more likely those links aren't passing the same value as a regular link (metrics such as pagerank, anchor text weighting, etc)
So we end up in this grey area - it's likely Google is seeing the links, we just don't know how much they are using those links in their ranking algorithms.
-
Hi Cyrus,
I've DL'ed the Lynx browser and compared the browser to the Google Cache Text Version of this page - http://search.veer.com/food. I got two different results - Lynx can definitely see the links in the search results, but Google Text Version is not seeing them. Could it be possible that Lynx browser is different from what Google sees? Or is it that Google Text Version is no longer a valid SEO tool/reference? Please let me know what you think.
Thank you!
-
Hi Folks,
We'd greatly appreciate it if we can get some development expertise regarding the proposed method in the original post in addition to the follow up articles. Does anyone have feedback regarding these? Thank you for your help!
-Corbis
-
Hi Cyrus,
Thanks for your response, we really appreciate it. All of the issues you mentioned are getting addressed in the near future. The reason why the search results pages are not getting index is because they have "noindex" tags on the pages. This is getting addressed as well.
What Lynx browser do you recommend?
Thank you!
-
First of all, let me start with the disclaimer that I'm not an expert in all these areas of technology (AJAX and offscreen rendering) but let me offer my 2 cents.
Google's quality guidelines state that no text should ever be hidden from the user, so in general I recommend against it. In reality, it's actually pretty common - and a lot of webmasters commonly justify CSS image replacement and other techniques using this line of argument > but in general I prefer to always play it safe.
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66353
That said, I'm more concerned about other areas of your site, specifically that search results are rendered on their own subdomain, while product images are served from another separate subdomain. Splitting the domain authority like this is most likely hurting the ability of your products to rank.
I couldn't find a cached version of your search results, (probably because of the server no cache control) but it appears all the search results depend on JavaScript to render. At least, when I view the page with JavaScript turned off (using the MozBar) I get an empty page.
Also, how are the search results getting crawled? I see a few links to search results on the homepage and /product/images/ page. On the product pages themselves, I see links to search results like this:
http://search.veer.com/?termonly=1&searchTerm=2647 - which I actually think is a brilliant way to get those search results crawled, but I assume that URLs is identical to http://search.veer.com/childhood? Also, the related keywords disappear when I turn off javascript?!
So, I might be worried that big G isn't crawling your search results pages that much at all, which if true, sorta makes the point moot.
Like I said, I'm not expert in this field, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. If you're goal is to get better crawling/indexing of your product pages through Google crawling your search results,
- I'd do an audit of your site with all javascript turned off, or
- Use a text browser such as Lynx to examine your site
- check your server logs to see how often google is visiting your search results,
- See if there is another way to get better indexing of you product pages (related image links, etc)
- Make sure link juice is flowing through your site appropriately through html text links.
Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.
-
Hi Cesar,
Thanks for the input. Greatly appreciate it.
In this case, we're not trying to serve different content for Google vs. our users. Rather, we're trying to make sure that the links in our internal search results are indexed by Google without hindering user experience. Google will see the same links as the users. It's just that users will experience an AJAX rendering instead of static HTML rendering. Would this still make it Black Hat SEO?
Also, any comment on the two articles?
Thank you for your help!
-
"Now I know that rendering text indent to -9999 is a black hat SEO tactic. But, would it be the same in this case? We're only doing this avoid bad UI. Please advise. "
I would definitely stay away from this one personally. This was and is a huge Black Hat practice. If Google sees it different than the user then stay away from it.
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
-
Mobile-First Indexing New Site monetized with Adsense AMP or not?
I am considering developing a new site monetized with Adsense. I am wondering if it's still worth bothering with AMP, it will take some work to get the functionality I have in mind working on these pages due to the inherent limitations. Has anyone got any insights in terms of current and future benefits of AMP in terms of ranking benefits and Adsense earning potential?
Web Design | | GrouchyKids0 -
With Google's new Speed Update, what does that mean for AMP pages?
Hey everyone! I wanted to get the other Mozzers opinions on this. With Google announcing a new Speed Update that will affect mobile rankings, I wanted to ask: How will AMP pages play into this? Let me know what you think!
Web Design | | TaylorRHawkins
Thanks!2 -
Fixing Render Blocking Javascript and CSS in the Above-the-fold content
We don't have a responsive design site yet, and our mobile site is built through Dudamobile. I know it's not the best, but I'm trying to do whatever we can until we get around to redesigning it. Is there anything I can do about the following Page Speed Insight errors or are they just a function of using Dudamobile? Eliminate render-blocking JavaScript and CSS in above-the-fold content Your page has 3 blocking script resources and 5 blocking CSS resources. This causes a delay in rendering your page.None of the above-the-fold content on your page could be rendered without waiting for the following resources to load. Try to defer or asynchronously load blocking resources, or inline the critical portions of those resources directly in the HTML.Remove render-blocking JavaScript: http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js http://mobile.dudamobile.com/…ckage.min.js?version=2015-04-02T13:36:04 http://mobile.dudamobile.com/…pts/blogs.js?version=2015-04-02T13:36:04 Optimize CSS Delivery of the following: http://fonts.googleapis.com/…:400|Great+Vibes|Signika:400,300,600,700 http://mobile.dudamobile.com/…ont-pack.css?version=2015-04-02T13:36:04 http://mobile.dudamobile.com/…kage.min.css?version=2015-04-02T13:36:04 http://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/kempruge/files/kempruge_0.min.css?v=6 http://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/…mpruge/files/kempruge_home_0.min.css?v=6 Thanks for any tips, Ruben
Web Design | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
What do you use for test rendering your dev site?
I'm redesigning our company ecommerce site and need to test render an infinite scroller to ensure that it is as SEO friendly as possible. My problem is that I cannot view it in Webmaster Tools since I am blocking the site from crawlers using robots.txt. I know I could simply unblock Google temporarily but I really would rather not make my dev site available to search engine crawlers.
Web Design | | bearpaw0 -
Q&A DB Script For Client Questions
Our clients usually have a lot of questions about our industry. We implemented Facebook comments (see bottom of: http://www.jwsuretybonds.com/info/faq.htm) on many pages throughout the site to allow our clients to ask whatever they'd like and build additional content using copy on how our clients speak, not industry expert vocab... I have some problems with FB comments: Our answers only show to people logged into FB. For others it looks as if we don't reply. The data pulls from FB, so we don't own it and it is slower than our server. You need a Facebook, Yahoo, or Hotmail account...I want anyone to be able to ask a question. Can anyone recommend a script that accomplishes our Q&A functionality using our own database? Also, I'd like to allow anyone to post without a requirement of an account. If I had a WordPress site, I suppose this would be easier, as I'm sure there are various comment solutions, but I have a HTML\PHP based custom built site.
Web Design | | TheDude0 -
New more "helpful" internal linking causing SERP & traffic drop?
Still dealing with the weird traffic drop on my website. I have removed a bunch of old links from a defunct blog, 301 thin pages, added text to remaining pages. I'm still stumped. So awhile ago I freshened up my website and thought I was "helping people" by making sure they could CONTACT the studio more easily... I added more links to the "contact page" I thought this would help conversions...This changed the number of links to my entire site....Would this be the problem with my ranking/traffic drop? http://bayareaboudoir.com/babinternal1.pdf
Web Design | | Squee1 -
White Text / Black Background & SEO Impact
Does anyone know of any testing / studies with evidence that Google prefers dark text on a light background vs. light text on a dark background? I have a website that currently has light text on a black background, and really like the way it looks, but am concerned that the style may be hurting SEO. Moreover, redesigning something inverse with the same quality would be a large project and fairly costly, so I'd like to make sure the benefit will really be worth the cost before moving forward.
Web Design | | Bromtec0 -
AJAX & JQuery Tabs: Indexation & Navigation
Hi I've two questions about indexing Tabs. 1. Let's say I have tabs, or an accordion that is triggered with Jquery. That means that all HTML is accessible and indexed by search engines. But let's say a search query is relevant to the content in Tab#3, while Tab#1 is the one that's open by default. Is there any way that Tab#3 would be open directly if it's more relevant to the search query? 2. AJAX Tabs: We have pages that have Tabs triggered by AJAX (example: http://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/help/loesung/entfernen-sie-sim-lock.html). I'm wondering about the current best practice. Google recommends HTML Snapshots. A newer SEOMoz Article talks about pushState(). What's the way to go here? Or in other words: How to get Tabs & Accordion content indexed and allow users to navigate directly to it?
Web Design | | zeepartner0