Hiding body copy with a 'read more' button
-
Hi
Whats the consequences of hiding half of the lovingly crafted body copy/written content (good quality modern version of what we used to call seo text) i have written for a clients main site sections and then having a 'read more' button to reveal ?
I have written 500+ words for each page but client wants to reduce word count displayed since thinks looks too 'wordy'!
I know that this is possible and used to be fine if done in a manner that was still crawlable, is this still the case ?
Cheers
Dan
-
Hi Dana
i did tell the devs to do as you recommended (CSS divs etc) but they just replied saying they did it through javascript instead, but should be ok since on page load the text is defaulting to show. Do you think that would be ok or inadvisable to use java at all as i have also heard elsewhere ? (there has been a drop in rankings since they did this so i'm thinking not ?
All Best
Dan
-
really !? i see it as other way round. SEO text short an kw stuffed and currently long 3-400+ highly descriptive and good quality content copy that includes kw simply by virtue of the being descriptive and useful
-
Old fashioned SEO text would be loads of copy per page. A short paragraph explaining things for the user should be sufficient in most cases.
-
i thought pages needed loads of good copy 500+ words ideally ? instead of old fashioned seo text
-
Probably won't hurt, but won't help either. Could be seen as spammy if you ever had a manual reviewer from Google go over your site. 500+ words per page is overkill.
-
You are welcome Dan!
-
many thanks Dana
-
Hi Dan,
Yes, if you accomplish this with CSS and collapsible/expandable
tags it's totally fine. It's understandable why from a design standpoint it might be much more attractive to have a page with less words on it. Justin Taylor (@justingraphitas) actually did a bang-up job in a Mozinar on designing for SEO that discusses this exact topic: http://moz.com/webinars/designing-for-seo
Hope that helps!
Dana
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
-
Putting review aggregation in product's navigation
Do you guys think it's a bad idea to put a review aggregation page in a product's navigation? Such as: "Which Brand of Men's Shampoo Is Best for You?" Rand suggests against it in this Whiteboard Friday as it interferes with a product's funnel, but I wonder if including it in navigation will give a domain and that page increased authority for a head keyword, such as "men's shampoo." What do you guys think?
On-Page Optimization | | Edward_Sturm0 -
Can't figure why ranking dropped after SEO improved.
I took a website that never had any keyword research performed, meta data filled in or anything strategic regarding getting ranked on the search engines. We rebuilt the website from an old Dreamweaver install using Wordpress, did keyword research, optimized one page per keyword term, filled in all the appropriate meta data and alt tags. The site has dropped in rankings and I've been working for the past 3 months to attempt to raise it up. Can you see what I am doing wrong? (This is the client site: http://www.atozqualityfencing.com).
On-Page Optimization | | JanetJ0 -
One Webpage per Topic or splitting up for better reading...?
What is better from a SEO-Point of View: I am building right now a website where the principal topic is Renewable Energies. There will be a menu listing all kinds of Energy-types: Biogas CSP Biomass etc. And now my question: Each Topic has about 800-1000 Words of unique content with sub-topics. I think its certainly good to have for each energy type one separate page. But I think its no a good Idea to split also the subtopics up to further sub-pages like: www.energy.com/renewable-energies-biomass.html www.energy.com/renewable-energies-biomass-eficiency.html www.energy.com/renewable-energies-biomass-market.html www.energy.com/renewable-energies-biomass-industries.html as 1000 Words on one page may look like better higher quality content than making 3-4 pages with just 200 Words... talking about Biomass, but from several points of views. So I think its better to put all about Biomass on one single-page and use a menu just to jump to the subtopics via anchor-tags. Right? 🙂 Thanks Kate and Charles! Meanwhile I found out whats the right term for my question: "Pagination" I read about using the rel="next" and rel="prev" attribute when paginating an article over different pages.
On-Page Optimization | | inlinear
MY DOUBT: Sometimes you see single page paginated by using javaScript that hides text although all is in the page source, for better reading. Does Google like that or might think it could be hidden text with spamming purpose? So I think using old school "named anchors" to divide text into topics (for text about 1000 words) is better than using javaScript that reaveals text via pagination or expand collapse.0 -
Will Google penalize my website if I hide the H1 tag?
If I hide H1 tag (title on the homepage) with CSS, how Google handle with my site?
On-Page Optimization | | joeko0 -
Can't see why been marked 'Avoid Keyword Stuffing'
Hi SEOmoz! I'm a newbie, first post, here goes... Working my way through On-Page Report Cards. Noticed this page http://www.vintageheirloom.com/vintage-chanel/vintage-chanel-bags flagged with 'Avoid Keyword Stuffing in Document'. Keyword is 'Vintage Chanel bags' and there is just one instance of it on this particular category page?? Any ideas? Any general pointers for me on www.vintageheirloom.com would also be much appreciated. Thanks SEOmozzers...
On-Page Optimization | | well-its-1-louder0 -
Not using H1's with keywords to simulate natural non SEO'd content?
There has been a lot of talk lately about making a website seem like it is not SEO'd to avoid over optimization penalties with the recent Google Algorithmic updates. Has anyone come across the practice of not using Headings (H1's, H2's etc..) properly to simulate that the current webpage isn't over optimized? I've come across a site that used to use multiple keywords within their headings & now they are using none. In fact they are marking their company name & logo as an H1 and non keyworded H2's such as our work or Contact. Is anyone holding back on their old SEO tactics to not seem over optimized to Google? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | DCochrane0 -
Would adding a line break tag into the product name affect SEO ranking and Google's ability to read the entire title?
Our client would like to include a link break so that part of the product name always showed up on a second line. Would this affect how Google bots crawl the product name? Would it also affect how Google would show the product name in a search result page? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | BrandLabs0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0