Thumbnail-based navigation like YouTube Sidebar - they don't use ALT tag
-
Notice on the YouTube sidebar, each video has a thumbnail and a title.
But, for the ALT tag, YouTube simply uses the word "thumbnail".
In the past, i was using a keyword phrase for my thumbnail ALT tag. I thought I was being clever. But is this superflous?
We note that the A tag on the YouTube items, encompasses the SPAN that is the video + title. Does Google associate the text of the title as valid "anchor text" despite the existance of other info in that span --- e.g. like View Count and the User Name of the video creator?
Thanks!
-
well, i read a post that said that, the second link to a page has no anchor text value.
e.g. if the anchor text DOGS, links to pageX, and the anchor text DOG COLLARS links to pagex (further down), then only the first anchor text will be applied to the link vector.
So, on a typical YouTube style right nav bar, you have the thumbnail and the title clickable. Given that the title text would have no value, i simply made the thumbnail the only clickable element on the whole right nav bar assembly.
Good idea of bad idea?
Thanks!
-
I like to use ALT tags to add variations of keywords which are relevant to my page but my client may wish to otherwise avoid.
Someone recently shared their experience of working with a client who ran a retirement home. The client was determined to not use the phrase "retirement home" to refer to his own business. So his website can talk about "senior living home" and other phrases, but we recognize as SEOs "retirement home" is a very important phrase which needs to be associated with the site.
By using ALT tags we can work the phrase "retirement home" into the site. The description is accurate and helpful.
-
But, for the ALT tag, YouTube simply uses the word "thumbnail".
lol... It is really hard to look down the microscope, every day, at every employee.
-
Google is one of the least SEO compliant companies online. Sad, but true. Worse, ALT attributes are first and foremost for screen-readers -devices that allow visually impaired people to understand what an image is about.
ALT attributes do have value in SEO - it's not massive, yet it doesn't hurt if you use them properly.
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
-
Canonical Tag when using Ajax and PhantomJS
Hello, We have a site that is built using an AJAX application. We include the meta fragment tag in order to get a rendered page from PhantomJS. The URL that is rendered to google from PhantomJS then is www.oursite.com/?escaped_fragment= In the SERP google of course doesnt include the hashtag in the URL. So my question, with this setup, do i still need a canonical tag and if i do, would the canonical tag be the escaped fragment URL or the regular URL? Much Appreciated!
Technical SEO | | RevanaDigitalSEO0 -
Http to https - is a '302 object moved' redirect losing me link juice?
Hi guys, I'm looking at a new site that's completely under https - when I look at the http variant it redirects to the https site with "302 object moved" within the code. I got this by loading the http and https variants into webmaster tools as separate sites, and then doing a 'fetch as google' across both. There is some traffic coming through the http option, and as people start linking to the new site I'm worried they'll link to the http variant, and the 302 redirect to the https site losing me ranking juice from that link. Is this a correct scenario, and if so, should I prioritise moving the 302 to a 301? Cheers, Jez
Technical SEO | | jez0000 -
Canonical tag refers to itself (???)
Greetings Mozzers. I have seen a couple of pages that use canonical tags in a peculiar way, and I wanted to know if this way of using the tags was correct, harmless or dangerous: What I've seen is that on some pages like: www.example.com/page1 There's a canonical tag in the header that looks like this link href="http://ww.example.com/page1" rel="canonical" It looks as though the tag is "redirecting to itself", this seems useless (at least to me). Is there a case where this is actually a recommended practice? Will using the canonical tag in this way "hurt" the page's ranking potential? Cheers Jorge
Technical SEO | | Masoko-T0 -
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?
Technical SEO | | blake-766240 -
Website isn't Ranking for Any Keyword
Hi, I launched a playhouses website in april this year and have been steadily link building to it over the past few months. I have gotten all of the internal optimisation correct (that I can see) however it is still not ranking for any keyword and suprinsgly all of our traffic is comming either direct or through bing. The website is showing as being in googles index however it is still not ranking for even the smallest of niche keywords. The only penalty I can see is that we have some spammy blog links that my colleague has gotten which I have been trying to counteract with high quality guest blogging. Any input is welcome the url is http://www.playhouses.co.uk/ Simon
Technical SEO | | GardenGamer0 -
Rel-canonical tag
Hi, I'm having some confusion with the rel-canonical tag. A few months ago we implemented the rel-canonical tag because we had many errors specifically duplicate page content come upon the SEOmoz web app (mostly because we use tracking code). I had asked what to do about this and was advised by the SEOmoz web app to implement the rel-canonical tag. However, when I'm working on the Keyword Optimizer Tool, it always checks off that I'm using the rel-canonical tag improperly, and then when I go into our sites' CMS for that page and uncheck "Use Canonical URL", the keyword optimizer tool up's my grade for that correction/that I've made an improvement. So my question is if the page I'm working on is the one I want search engines to find, should I not be using the Canonical URL tag? Should the Canonical URL tag only be used on URL's with the tracking code?
Technical SEO | | aircyclemegan0 -
Handling '?' in URLs.
Adios! (or something), I've noticed in my SEOMoz campaign that I am getting duplicate content warnings for URLs with extensions. For example: /login.php?action=lostpassword /login.php?action=register etc. What is the best way to deal with these type of URLs to avoid duplicate content penelties in search engines? Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | craigycraig0