Hidden Content with "clip"
-
Hi
We're relaunching a site with a Drupal 7 CMS. Our web agency has hidden content on it and they say it's for Accessibility (I don't see the use myself, though). Since they ask for more cash in order to remove it, the management is unsure. So I wanted to check if anyone knows whether this could hurt us in search engines.
There is a field in the HTML where you can skip to the main content:
The corresponding CSS comes here:
.element-invisible{position:absolute !important;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);clip:rect(1px,1px,1px,1px);}
#skip-link a,#skip-link a:visited{position:absolute;display:block;left:0;top:-500px;width:1px;height:1px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;background-color:#666;color:#fff;}
The crucial point is that they're hiding the text "skip to main content", using clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px), which shrinks the text to one pixel. So IMO this is hiding content. How bad is it?
PS: Hope the source code is sufficient. Ask me if you need more. Thx!
-
..although I should add that it is indeed normal to have the possibility to skip content for visually impaired users (an accessibility organisation confirmed this). I'm just not sure what the best practice to do it is and I seriously don't like reducing content to 1 pixel.
-
thanx for confirming EGOL... yup, they are indeed crooks, but the contract was set-up quite badly. At least I could get them to add the clause that the website should use "semantic markup". so I hope i can kick their behinds with this instead of pay for a decent website!
-
I would be really really really really mad if they did this to me.
they say it's for Accessibility
This is such BS... (they know they are full of BS and they are so dumb that they think they can make you believe that it is chocolate)
Since they ask for more cash in order to remove it
Weasels!
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
-
Internal search pages (and faceted navigation) solutions for 2018! Canonical or meta robots "noindex,follow"?
There seems to conflicting information on how best to handle internal search results pages. To recap - they are problematic because these pages generally result in lots of query parameters being appended to the URL string for every kind of search - whilst the title, meta-description and general framework of the page remain the same - which is flagged in Moz Pro Site Crawl - as duplicate, meta descriptions/h1s etc. The general advice these days is NOT to disallow these pages in robots.txt anymore - because there is still value in their being crawled for all the links that appear on the page. But in order to handle the duplicate issues - the advice varies into two camps on what to do: 1. Add meta robots tag - with "noindex,follow" to the page
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SWEMII
This means the page will not be indexed with all it's myriad queries and parameters. And so takes care of any duplicate meta /markup issues - but any other links from the page can still be crawled and indexed = better crawling, indexing of the site, however you lose any value the page itself might bring.
This is the advice Yoast recommends in 2017 : https://yoast.com/blocking-your-sites-search-results/ - who are adamant that Google just doesn't like or want to serve this kind of page anyway... 2. Just add a canonical link tag - this will ensure that the search results page is still indexed as well.
All the different query string URLs, and the array of results they serve - are 'canonicalised' as the same.
However - this seems a bit duplicitous as the results in the page body could all be very different. Also - all the paginated results pages - would be 'canonicalised' to the main search page - which we know Google states is not correct implementation of canonical tag
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html this picks up on this older discussion here from 2012
https://mza.bundledseo.com/community/q/internal-search-rel-canonical-vs-noindex-vs-robots-txt
Where the advice was leaning towards using canonicals because the user was seeing a percentage of inbound into these search result pages - but i wonder if it will still be the case ? As the older discussion is now 6 years old - just wondering if there is any new approach or how others have chosen to handle internal search I think a lot of the same issues occur with faceted navigation as discussed here in 2017
https://mza.bundledseo.com/blog/large-site-seo-basics-faceted-navigation1 -
Tabbed content impact
Hi all, I know historically tabbed content has been devalued, what's the situation currently? I've heard a lot about mobile first changing this. This is a design that has been produced by our designers: https://i.gyazo.com/35f655c7ba2bc89a87b9476e4a14534d.png Each tab contains approx 1000 words and previously has been a unique article. Would love to know your thoughts on this design and the benefits/losses of doing it like this. Thanks, Tom
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThomasHarvey0 -
How to answer for question "why xyz site is ranking for abc keyword" and not our website
Hi All, This is a layman question but would like to get a concrete answer for. I would like to know how to answer the questions like "Why our competitor is ranking for keyword ABC but not us"? What metrics or data can I showcase that gives logical answer. Please help in this regard. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Avin1230 -
Block lightbox content
I'm working on a new website with aggregator of content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPalmer
i'll show to my users content from another website in my website in LIGHTBOX windows when they'll click on the title of the items. ** I don't have specific url for these items.
What is the best way to say for SE "Don't index these pages"?0 -
Should pages with rel="canonical" be put in a sitemap?
I am working on an ecommerce site and I am going to add different views to the category pages. The views will all have different urls so I would like to add the rel="canonical" tag to them. Should I still add these pages to the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Sudden Drop in rank of Keyword "Sobha Aspirational Homes"
Hi, For domain http://www.homeadda-sobhaaspirationalhomes.in/ keyword Sobha Aspirational Homes, We had google india ranking 5 continuously for past 2 months. There is sudden drop in rank and we have been pushed to rank 114. I do not understand why this happened. Regards, Mithun
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mithungowda0 -
Question about copying content
Hi there, I have had a question from a retailer asking if they can take all our content i.e. blog articles, product pages etc, what is best practice here in getting SEO value out of this? Here a few ideas I was thinking of: I was thinking they put canonical tags on all pages where they have copied our content? They copy the content but leave all anchor text in place? Please let me know your thoughts. Kind Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
What does "base" link mean here?
On http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394, it says: rel="canonical" can be used with relative or absolute links, but we recommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or difficulties. If your document specifies a base link, any relative links will be relative to that base link. Where would a document specify a base link? And how?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0