Tagging Assets
-
As I am finding ways to integrate keyword diversity into my key landing pages, I want to start adding META information to content such as images and videos.
1. Any blog posts on best practices you can send me to?
2. Can I add META information to iFrames? Or do i have to rely on the tags added within Vimeo & You Tube?
Thank you again
-
Structured data (microdata etc.) is markup that specifies what a section of a web page is about. So for example you can markup a review so that Google can identify the star ratings and knows that the product got a 4/5.
This type of data is part of the semantic web - which is a WWW where bots like Google stop seeing Sites and start seeing entities. So for example in the current web a search engine might see links to a site with the anchor text "shoes" and interpret that to mean that the site is relevant for "shoe" based queries but if those links went to that brand's Facebook page the connection with shoes would be a lot weaker. In a semantic web the search engine would be able to tell very easily that a brand's Facebook and Twitter pages are part of the same organisation and that links to either count the same as to the main site.
That's a pretty crude example (and to some extent search engines are already doing this) but you can see how it can affect SEO. That's not to mention the benefits that you can be getting right now from having rich snippets (Google them, they're cool).
It depends on the purpose of the video. I'd put informational videos onto Youtube just because of the traffic floating about on the Youtube platform.
I'm not an expert on video SEO but if you read this then you will be.
-
Part 1: Yes just alt and title tags. But now you have piqued my interest. What is micro data,format, RDFa?
Part 2: So would there be value in me putting the video on our web server and skip YouTube/Vimeo, or is the link building associated with those sites better?
I guess we're talking content vs. links
Thanks.
-
What type of meta data were you thinking about? Were you thinking about structured data (like microdata, RDFa, microformats), just alt and title tags, or something else?
To answer your second question you can't add anything into the iFrame but don't worry because Google won't read the contents of the iFrame anyway.However you can always affect the markup around the iFrame if you want to.
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
-
Non-standard HTML tags in content
I had coded my website's article content with a non-standard tag <cnt>that surrounded other standard tags that contained the article content, I.e.</cnt> , . The whole text was enclosed in a div that used Schema.org markup to identify the contents of the div as the articleBody. When looking at scraped data for stories in Webmaster Tools, the content of the story was there and identified as the articleBody correctly. It's recently been suggested by someone else that the presence of the non-standard <cnt>tags were actually making the content of the article uncrawlable by the Googlebot, this effectively rendering the content invisible. I did not believe this to be true, since the content appeared to be correctly indexed in Webmaster Tools, but for the sake of a test I agreed to removing them. In the last 6 weeks since they were removed, there have been no changes in impressions or traffic from organic search, which leads me to believe that the removal of the <cnt>tags actually had no effect, since the content was already being indexed successfully and nothing else has changed.</cnt></cnt> My question is whether or not an encapsulating non-standard tag as I've described would actually make the content invisible to Googlebot, or if it should not have made any difference so long as the correct Schema.org markup was in place? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | dlindsey0 -
Bars Verus Hyphens in Title Tags
It has been quite a while since I have seen an article really talk about this and I am wondering if this even matters anymore? I prefer the look of a - rather than a | but just wondering if this is still a thing... If you know of a recent article going into findings on this supporting one or the other it would be appreciated. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
Canonical URL Tag: Confusing Use Case
We have a webpage that changes content each evening at mid-night -- let's call this page URL /foo. This allows a user to bookmark URL /foo and obtain new content each day. In our case, the content on URL /foo for a given day is the same content that exists on another URL on our website. Let's say the content for November 5th is URL /nov05, November 6th is /nov06 and so on. This means on November 5th, there are two pages on the website that have almost identical content -- namely /foo and /nov05. This is likely a duplication of content violation in the view of some search engines. Is the Canonical URL Tag designed to be used in this situation? The page /nov05 is the permanent page containing the content for the day on the website. This means page /nov05 should have a Canonical Tag that points to itself and /foo should have a Canonical Tag that points to /nov05. Correct? Now here is my problem. The page at URL /foo is the fourth highest page authority on our 2,000+ page website. URL /foo is a key part of the marketing strategy for the website. It has the second largest number of External Links second only to our home page. I must tell you that I'm concerned about using a Cononical URL Tag that points away from the URL /foo to a permanent page on the website like /nov05. I can think of a lot of things negative things that could happen to the rankings of the page by making a change like this and I am not sure what we would gain. Right now /foo has a Canonical URL Tag that points to itself. Does anyone believe we should change this? If so, to what and why? Thanks for helping me think this through! Greg
Technical SEO | | GregSims0 -
What is the best way to find missing alt tags on my site (site wide - not page by page)?
I am looking to find all the missing alt tags on my site at once. I have a FF extension that use to do it page by page, but my site is huge and that will take forever. Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | franchisesolutions1 -
Does the rel="bookmark" tag have any SEO impication?
I'm assuming the rel="bookmark" tag doesn't have any SEO implications but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't viewed like a nofollow by search engines.
Technical SEO | | eli.boda0 -
Schema tags - Schema.org
We have rolled out Schema tags for our homepage which has been very beneficial for us. We obviously don't want to go overboard however; can you please clarify, should Schema tags be limited to the homepage location, or implemented through the site? Thanks
Technical SEO | | hickboy50 -
Canonical tags and relative paths
Hi, I'm seeing a problem with Roger Bot crawling a clients site. In a campaign I am seeing you say that the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL. The tag is as follows:- /~/Standards-and....etc Google say:- relative paths are recognized as expected with the tag. Also, if you include a <base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL Is the issue with this, that there is a /~/, that there is no <base> link or just an issue with Roger? Best regards, Peter
Technical SEO | | peeveezee0