Does **tag on a product description help?**
-
Hi,
Does using the tag on a line of text in the products description help with SEO for that keyword phrase?
**See here: http://www.designerboutique-online.com/tops/passarella-death-squad/passarella-death-squad-t-shirt-white/0/
I have bolded the Passarella Death Squad T-Shirt line. Would this help in any way?
Cheers
Will**
-
Great question, but the short answer is “No”. Back in 1996 it may have been a small contributing factor but not today.
But…
The strong tag does have another propose.
So lets say we have an article that’s quite wordy. We all know the average web user isn’t going to read it all so this is where the strong tag can be of used.
Emphasising keywords or sentences using the bold tag is a great way of getting the message across and noticed
-
Hi Kieran,
Thanks for your reply. They are not a band but a designer clothing label.
The price reflect the quality of the fabric, made from fine japanese fabric. Some of the descriptions say this but I should really get it in all of them.
The problem I see is were getting hundereds of items online, going into great detail on each item description is a task upon its self.
Maybe the t-shirt image blurb would be useful as it will tell the customer exactly what it stands for.
Within that description, how many times would be recommend to get the words "passarella death squad t-shirt" in there? Currently aiming for about twice, is this ok?
Cheers
Will
-
I agree that there is probably next to no SEO value for using the **tag here. What I do like is that it works from a usability standpoint. To me it is natural for that line to be bolded because it is the name of the product. It makes the name stand out a bit and makes it easier for the user to know what they are looking at. For that, +1. **
-
Agree strongly Valery there (get it - sorry saddo response)
Strong is coming to the fore more as the default for bold on most WYSIWYG editors but I don't think Google worries too much about it. There was a lot of activity in making your first use keywords bolded for the first paragraphs to help SEO but for product pages I would personally concentrate on adding content so for the T-Shirt page that you refer to here I would write a little blurb about the group, mention the material of the T-Shirt. Even a short blurb as to what the image on the T-Shirt is about.
You are looking for people who are fans of this group (never heard of them myself) who search online If this is one opf their songs then perhaps a YouTube link. Looks like there are a lot of vendors out there selling T-Shirts of this type so make the page stand out.
IMHO bold/strong is the least of your concerns. Work the group angle as hard as possible. The T-Shirts aren't a cheap item so you should explain in the text what makes them worth the price.
-
From what I can tell SEO-wise they're basically the same, and they may not have any benefit at all. This is gut feel (since Google doesn't exactly publish this stuff) but strong/bold might be comparable to H5 1/2 or something like that relevance-wise.
Where it gets interesting though is semantics. STRONG implies emphasis, where BOLD is a formatting choice. From what I've been reading some semantic aware systems would give STRONG priority, whereas they would treat BOLD the same as Font-color=Blue, or some other non-semantic signal. Because of this Strong is interpreted differently in some specialist systems (e.g. readers for the blind, certain mobile browsers), but that becomes more a client side concern than an SEO one.
From a standards perspective there's some discussion saying that in the XHTML 2.0 spec Bold is actually being deprecated in favor of Strong:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-257310.html
Given all of that, my guess is Strong may have some weight, but not enough to be a critical factor that's going to put you 'over the top' in any meaningful way. I also don't think it hurts unless abused, and again that would only be for semantic-aware clients like visual readers and so on.
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
-
Items 30 - 50", however this is not accurate. Articles/Pages/Products counts are not close to this, products are 100+, so are the articles. We would want to either hide this or correct this.
We are running into this issue where we see items 30 -50 appear underneath the article title for google SERP descriptions . See screenshot or you can preview how its appearing in the listing for the site here: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=5I5fX939L6qxytMPh_el4AQ&q=site%3Adarbyscott.com&oq=site%3Adarbyscott.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoICAAQsQMQgwE6BQgAELEDOgIIADoECAAQCjoHCAAQsQMQClDYAljGJmC9J2gGcAB4AIABgwOIAYwWkgEIMjAuMy4wLjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEA&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjd_4nR_ejrAhWqmHIEHYd7CUwQ4dUDCAk&uact=5 Items 30 - 50", however this is not accurate and we are not sure what google algorithm is counting. . Articles/Pages/Products counts are not close to this, products are 100+, so are the articles. Anyone have any thoughts on what google is pulling for the count and how to correct this? We would want to either hide this or correct this. view?usp=sharing
Web Design | | Raymond-Support0 -
Rel=next and rel=prev meta tags
Hi,
Web Design | | RocoClothing
We have recently implemented the rel=next and rel=prev meta tags on the
category pages of our website. Currently for example if on page 2 we have the following: href="http://www.rococlothing.co.uk/boys/boys-suits/" />
href="http://www.rococlothing.co.uk/boys/boys-suits/?p=1" />
href="http://www.rococlothing.co.uk/boys/boys-suits/?p=3" /> For each page we are using the same canonical tag which is the url for
the 1st page in the category.
Is this the correct way to impletment it or should the canonical tag for
page 2 be as follows: href="http://www.rococlothing.co.uk/boys/boys-suits/?p=2" /> I have also seen some companies ommiting the canonical tag on pages
after page 1 and just using the prev and nexts. Could anyone advise as to what the ideal implementation would be for this? Regards
Patrick0 -
Best practices for ecommerce product categories?
I'm trying to optimise my ecommerce site's category/navigation structure so that it is: Intuitive for human users Keyword optimised, and Minimises duplicate content penalties Here is my dilemma. Let's say my site sells widgets. Some people search for widgets according to size (big widgets, medium widgets) while others search according to colour (green widgets, blue widgets). My keyword research suggests that I should target some keywords that relate to size, others that relate to colour, yet others relating to material, etc. I figured that I'd use one of these taxonomies as a category system, then set the others as filter elements. So my site's main navigation would say "Big Widgets | Medium Widgets | Small Widgets". If you click on any of them, or if you click on the "Widgets" supercategory, you'd reach a filter function allowing you to see only green widgets, or only plastic widgets, etc. So far so good - from a user perspective. The problem with this method is that Google isn't going to index my filter results. So someone Googling "green widgets" or "plastic widgets" is unlikely to find my site, even though I have plenty of green/plastic widgets that they could have filtered for. My next thought was to add some of these filter urls to my main navigation so they will be crawled. My filter mod generates urls for each filter (eg mysite.com/category?filter=k39;w24). So now I have a flashier navigation menu where clicking "Widgets" will pop out a panel allowing you to browse by size or by colour. I don't know whether users will find this helpful or redundant/confusing, but at least Google can see my filter urls. But I've run into two more problems. My filter results aren't really pages, so I can't set things like H1s, meta descriptions and so on. There's very little I can do to keyword optimise them. Further, I now have duplicate content, because the same widget can show up under multiple filter urls. And so I'm stuck here. I've thought about creating custom pages for each target keyword and manually listing products that pertain to each keyword. This will allow me to optimise the pages, but it's a lot of ongoing work (I have to update them whenever I get new stock), and I'm not sure my visitors will appreciate this - I suspect they would rather just browse/filter/search through my site than have to click through pages of manual curated content. I'd appreciate any thoughts or advice on figuring out my category and navigation system!
Web Design | | peekpeeka0 -
Increasing content, adding rich snippets... and losing tremendous amounts of organic traffic. Help!
I know dramatic losses in organic traffic is a common occurrence, but having looked through the archives I'm not sure that there's a recent case that replicates my situation. I've been working to increase the content on my company's website and to advise it on online marketing practices. To that end, in the past four months, I've created about 20% more pages — most of which are very high quality blog posts; adopted some rich snippets (though not all that I would like to see at this point); improved and increased internal links within the site; removed some "suspicious" pages as id'd by Moz that had a lot of links on it (although the content was actually genuine navigation); and I've also begun to guest blog. All of the blog content I've written has been connected to my G+ account, including most of the guest blogging. And... our organic traffic is preciptiously declining. Across the board. I'm befuddled. I can see no warnings (redirects &c) that would explain this. We haven't changed the site structure much — I think the most invasive thing we did was optimize our title tags! So no URL changes, nothing. Obviously, we're all questioning all the work I've done. It just seems like we've sunk SO much energy into "doing the right thing" to no effect (this site was slammed before for its shady backlink buying — though not from any direct penalty, just as a result of the Penguin update). We noticed traffic taking a particular plunge at the beginning of June. Can anyone offer insights? Very much appreciated.
Web Design | | Novos_Jay0 -
Would iFrames From a Beta3 Help the SEO Value of Domain?
What I understand as of now: Google does crawl iframes, but attributes the SEO value of the content within them to their original site. (Let me know if I'm mistaken.) What I need to know: If I were to iframe a section of a beta3.domainname.com site into a domainname.com site, does this beta3 attribute any SEO value to the domainname.com site? Essentially - Does good content on a from a beta3.domainname.com (which is mainly just a naked piece of content) bring any benefit to the domainname.com version of the site when it is iframed into the domainname.com site?
Web Design | | SmokewagonKen0 -
SEO for product dimensions
I am taking over a new project that offers high price large products. I am trying to decide on the best way to do some SEO on the product titles, etc. for best practices what do ya'll recommend right now we're doing: 10' H x 10' W x 12' D product name blah blah blah and other thoughts on how to be more efficient in this?
Web Design | | malachiii0 -
How do search engines interpret <hgroup>...</hgroup> tags?
Hi there. I'm building an HTML 5 site and through research of new HTML 5 elements I've seen little conclusive information about the interpretation of the new <hgroup>tag, in terms of SEO application and interpretation. In particular does Google interpret the nested heading tags as individual elements or does it combine them into one entity? For example, say I have: <hgroup> # Article Heading ## Article Sub-heading </hgroup> How is this interpreted by Google and what would be some good SEO best practices regarding the <hgroup>tag in HTML5: Is it interpretted as a single tag (" Article Heading: Article Sub-heading ") or two separate heading tags (one and one )? Also, how much does the ordering of the tags matter (say for example I wanted something like the following for visual purposes? <hgroup> ## Article Sub-heading # Article Heading </hgroup> One last thing: is it safe to assume that it is indeed OK to have multiple tags on a single page (as referenced by Matt Cutts a while back in a Webmaster Video)? Thanks! </hgroup> </hgroup>
Web Design | | LMDNYC2 -
How to Add canonical tags on .ASPX pages?
What is the proper way (or is it possible) to add canonical tags on website pages that end in .aspx? If you add a canonical tag to the Master Page it will put that exact canonical tag on every page, which is bad. Is there a different version of the tag to put on individual pages? And one to put on the home page without the Master Page error?
Web Design | | Ryan-Bradley0