Would the use of
-
Hi,
I am wondering on you through relevant to SEO in the following situation.
I have a "travel" website and obvisouls as part of that I have a whole list of desitinations.
So I have a drop down in my page navigation, which lists all my desitinations.
At the moment I see have 2 main options to display the lists as follows:
1/. Perfect Anchors, but not good for usability - IE repeating the word "holiday in a list of 100 destinations, looks spammy for one, and when the headline says "Holiday Destinations", then from a use perspective its pretty pointless and takes away from navigation rather than improves it".
New York Holidays
Las Vegas Holidays2/. Non Perfect Anchors - But better for usability
New York
Las VegasSo I am thinking - would the use of the title attribute provide a perfect solution?? Or am I wasting my time with this and it is just pointless considering it as an option.
EG - what I had in mind was:
3/. Ideal Solution for both SEO and usability??
New York
Las VegasThanks for you help in advance.
-
I've got the same issue. I have a lot of links on my site and I was trying to see if adding title="something" for each link will help or not.
We could always try it and see what happens. I don't see a reason why if they were added in it could cause an issue with the search engines. However if anyone has more experience on this I'd love to hear about it.
-
I rank well already for these terms (although not always No1) and have the trust.
I really don't want to compromise my design though - and I don't think you should have to for good SEO - IE If its best for the user, then it SHOULD be best for the SE's (in theory of course).
It would be useful to know if anyone has run any tests on this to see if the Title tag can help solve this issue, as it must be a very common issue. I really begruge compromising usability to help SEO, as I see this contraditory to what SE's should be looking for, and if this the case then a flaw in their alogrithm.
Thanks
-
I actually had the same issue with a travel site of mine and opted for option #1. Once I establish enough link popularity and and I am firmly in place with rankings I will adjust to the non perfect answers.
I guess it depends on how quickly you want to rank and if your domain already has enough trust to rank without them, if so I'd go for the more user friendly option.
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
-
Does Implemented SEO Changes Using Google Tag Manager are not supported any more?
Hello all! On May i read the article https://moz.com/blog/seo-changes-using-google-tag-manager and I implemented it in order to de-index some pages. I was really happy cause it worked but now the same problem appeared. Does anybody know if Google stopped taking into consideration SEO changes through Tag Manager? Hin6E Hin6E
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GeorgeGia0 -
Will the use of lightbox affect SEO?
I am looking to condense a features list on my pricing page. it is currently a static list however I want the user to click a button and a full list of standard features will pop up in a lightbox. How will this affect my SEO? Can Google read content in a lightbox?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ParkerSoftware0 -
Acceptable use of availability attribute 'preorder' value in rich snippets schema markup and Google Shopping feed?
Hello all, Could someone please advise on acceptable use of the availability attribute 'preorder' value in rich snippets schema markup for our websites and the Google Shopping feed? Currently all of our products are either 'in stock' or 'out of stock', also mentioned was 'available for order' but I found that in the 2014 Google Shopping update, this value will be merged with 'in stock' here 'We are simplifying the ‘availability’ attribute by merging ‘in stock’ with ‘available for order’ and removing ‘available for order’. The products which we would like to mark as 'preorder' have been in stock and then sold out, however we have a due date for when they will come back into stock, so therefore the customer can preorder the product on our website i.e. pay in advance to secure their purchase and then they are provided with a due date for the products. Is this the correct use of the 'preorder' value, or does the product literally have to never have been released before? The guidance we have is: 'You are taking orders for this product, but it’s not yet been released.' Is this set in stone? Many thanks in advance and kind regards.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffwhitfield0 -
301 and Canonical - is using both counterproductive
A site lost a great deal of traffic in July, which appears to be from an algorithmic penalty, and hasn't recovered yet. It appears several updates were made to their system just before the drop in organic results. One of the issues noticed was that both uppercase and lowercase urls existed. Example urls are: www.domain.com/product123
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ABK717
www.domain.com/Product123 To clean this up, a 301 redirect was implemented a few months ago. Another issue found was that many product related urls had a parameter added to the url for a tracking purpose. To clean this up, the tracking parameters were removed from the system and a canonical tag was implemented as these pages were also found in Google's index. The tag forced a page such as www.domain.com/product123?ref=topnav to be picked up as www.domain.com/product123. So now, there is a 301 to address the upper and lowercase urls and a canonical tag to address the parameters from creating more unnecessary urls. A few questions here: -Is this redunant and can cause confusion to the serps to have both a canonical and 301 redirect on the same page? -Both the 301 and canonical tag were implemented several months ago, yet Google's index is still showing them. Do these have to be manually removed with GWT individually since they are not in a subfolder or directory? Looking forward to your opinions.0 -
Canonical use when dynamically placing items on "all products" page
Hi all, We're trying to get our canonical situation straightened out. We have a section of our site with 100 product pages in it (in our case a city with hotels that we've reviewed), and we have a single page where we list them all out--an "all products" page called "all.html." However, because we have 100 and that's a lot for a user to see at once, we plan to first show only 50 on "all.html." When the user scrolls down to the bottom, we use AJAX to place another 50 on the page (these come from another page called "more.html" and are placed onto "all.html"). So, as you scroll down from the front end, you see "all.html" with 100 listings. We have other listings pages that are sorted and filtered subsets of this list with little or no unique content. Thus, we want to place a canonical on those pages. Question: Should the canonical point to "all.html"? Would spiders get confused, because they see that all.html is only half the listings? Is it dangerous to dynamically place content on a page that's used as a canonical? Is this a non-issue? Thanks, Tom
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomNYC0 -
Two pages on same domain - Is this a proper use of the canonical tag?
I have a domain with two pages in question--one is an article with 2,000 words and the other is a FAQ with 300 words. The 300 word FAQ is copied, word-for-word and pasted inside of the 2,000 word article. Would it be a proper use of the canonical tag to point the smaller, 300 word FAQ at the 2,000 word article? Since the 300 word article is identical to a portion of the 2,000 word article, will Google see this as duplicate content? Thanks in advance for any helpful insight.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrewv0 -
How to make an AJAX site crawlable when PushState and #! can't be used?
Dear Mozzers, Does anyone know a solution to make an AJAX site crawlable if: 1. You can't make use of #! (with HTML snapshots) due to tracking in Analytics 2. PushState can't be implemented Could it be a solution to create two versions of each page (one without #!, so campaigns can be tracked in Analytics & one with #! which will be presented to Google)? Or is there another magical solution that works as well? Any input or advice is highly appreciated! Kind regards, Peter
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ConversionMob0 -
Use rel=canonical to save otherwise squandered link juice?
Oftentimes my site has content which I'm not really interested in having included in search engine results. Examples might be a "view cart" or "checkout" page, or old products in the catalog that are no longer available in our system. In the past, I'd blocked those pages from being indexed by using robots.txt or nofollowed links. However, it seems like there is potential link juice that's being lost by removing these from search engine indexes. What if, instead of keeping these pages out of the index completely, I use to reference the home page (http://www.mydomain.com) of the business? That way, even if the pages I don't care about accumulate a few links around the Internet, I'll be capturing the link juice behind the scenes without impacting the customer experience as they browse our site. Is there any downside of doing this, or am I missing any potential reasons why this wouldn't work as expected?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cadenzajon1