seo query

[SLEE]

for seo what content is best to have at the top in the code? is having the menu at the top better than having the header and intro text?
some seo guys have asked for the header text and main intro text to be above the menu in the code. then i can move the menu above using  css but is this good or is having the menu first better so it finds the other pages better?

[Chris H]

I would say get your keywords and phrases up to the top. Seems better to have those in the content as opposed to the menu section. as once they're spidered then anyone seeing them in a search engine will have a context as well.

[suedenem]

Give your navigation items meaningful names rather than generic terms such as 'Services' or 'Products', and there is no reason why navigation shouldn't be given the same weight as content.

[Mike@TheWhippinpost]

TBH, I don't think it really matters as much these days, particularly if you have a sitemap.

SE's have become smarter in determining what's content, and what's navigational 'cos most nav elements are present on other pages of the site too.

But ultimately, content up high to be ultra slick and smooth.

[SLEE]

im sure its all a load of tosh for the seo company's to get more work. my thought was that if the menu wa massive then it might need moving but if it's not huge then google will find te content and "know" it's content.

has anyone had any experience with this? what would the best way of switching things around?

[SLEE]

following on...

ive investigating seo optimized web sites and ive seen this:

Code:

<h1 class="hide">text in here</h1>

obviously the class hide uses css to hide the header but is this actually good? isnt google clever enough to spot these kind of things?
the sites ive seen this on dont actually have any other h1 headers on the page but they choose to hide the ones that are there.

good or bad?

[Mr Anderson]

good or bad?

Ask BMW how they felt after they had their main site banned from Google.

[SLEE]

i heard about that but ws this some of the things they did?

[Mike@TheWhippinpost]

Well, I wouldn't use the class name 'hide', that's for sure!

It can be a legitimate accessibility technique to offer an alternative to a nice graphic, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Mr Anderson]

It can be a legitimate accessibility technique to offer an alternative to a nice graphic, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

It can be, yes, and Google doesn't automatically penalise for using the technique. Instead a member of their spam team reviews suspect sites and makes a decision based on what they find - and it's quite easy to tell the difference between hidden spam and text that's been hidden for accessibility reasons.

I don't recall Lee mentioning anything about images and accessibility, though. Just hidden text.

[Mr Anderson]

i heard about that but ws this some of the things they did?

That's all they did.

[SLEE]

the site i saw were literally hiding the h1. so ill stay  clear of that unless using it with as image as mentioned.

ive been delving into the seo a bit more after a company gave a friend some "advice" on their site so i began investigating. i found some sites that they have also given "advice" on a found these very worrying things.

(im still finding it hard to type my wrist is still in a cast so sorry for the spelling etc)

[Rosco]

i heard about that but ws this some of the things they did?

That's all they did.

I thought they used javascript redirects to take humans to another page, rather than use css to hide the spam?  Pretty much amounts to the same thing I suppose.

Hiding stuff for image replacement and stuff should be fine, I often use a small hidden header above menus, just saying "Site Menu" or something

[Mike@TheWhippinpost]

Instead a member of their spam team reviews suspect sites and makes a decision based on what they find - and it's quite easy to tell the difference between hidden spam and text that's been hidden for accessibility reasons.

To be inspected, it would need to be reported first. If it was reported, there's still probably going to be only a slim chance of a manual penalty unless the whole page (including source), is blatant spam that's sneaking past the algo's.

Assuming it isn't blatant markov'd spam (designed to be banned) etc... then it begs the question: Why hide it anyway (unless for accessibilty or "web 2.0" reasons)?

Sometimes people do this kind of stuff needlessly, because it's all on-topic anyway! And if it aint on-topic, it's better off the page anyway.

[Mr Anderson]

I thought they used javascript redirects to take humans to another page, rather than use css to hide the spam?

You're right. I was probably thinking about this mentioned at the bottom of Matt Cutt's post about BMW:

Finally, as long as we’re on the subject of cars: to the domestic car maker whose European domain had hidden text on the front: your 30 day removal was set to expire in two days, but the hidden text has been taken off the page, so I’m scheduling the domain for reinclusion now.

Apologies for confusion.

Hiding stuff for image replacement and stuff should be fine, I often use a small hidden header above menus, just saying "Site Menu" or something

Aye, I use image replacement quite extensively, and also offset supplementary content intended to aid screen reader users too (such as enhancing link text where the text is repeated for different links - eg. "Leave a comment" or "Read more" etc). All without a problem. The problems can arise when it becomes clear that the hidden text isn't really intended for humans (even though in most cases SR users will get it).