Does text, initially hidden within a tabbed structure, carry the same weight in Google?
-
Hi everyone,
my site has suffered from a number of organic drops this year, following a redesign, panda, and penguin. An example of one of my key pages is shown below:
http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/bridgestone-arena-hotels/326895
Earlier this year, I redesigned my site, so that, for example, 4 pages associated with each Bridgestone Arena (a page with nearby hotels, one for user reviews, one for upcoming events, one for general information) were combined into one "Bridgestone Arena Hotels" page. The reason I did this is because I felt that many of the pages were very thin. My new page has tabs for reviews, tickets etc., with the default tab listing nearby hotel information - the primary aim of my website.
I'm worried that all the great unique user review information that I'm collecting is not being given the weighting it deserves, because it is content that is not immediately visible when the user lands on the page - only click the Reviews tab makes the content visible.
The hidden content is definitely being picked up by Google e.g. searching for a portion of the review content in Google such as "We were here for the Aerosmith concert. The workers were so friendly and helpful - great experience!" serves up the Bridgestone Arena page in the results.
But do you think Google still sees the page as being pretty thin in content, because much of the unique content is initially hidden?
I am considering introducing a little featured reviews section to the visible content, that just includes a couple of the latest venue reviews, with a link to open the reviews tab. But if I have some review content here, and the same reviews in a hidden section of the same page, is Google likely to treat this as spammy?
Thanks for your help and advice,
Mike
-
Hey Mike, if you'd like to see how important rich content, and content above-the-fold is, turn on the SERP overlay and do a Google search for "best time of year to go to Tahiti". Have a look at the backlinks data for the #1 result (that's me), and compare that to the ones below (TripAdvisor, Frommers, USA Today, etc.). Now, look at my page, and then look at the TripAdvisor page, paying attention to what non-template, non-navigation, non-clickable content is above the fold. And look at the size of the images
I trust you're convinced now so let's move on to your next question.
Google has spent a lot of time analyzing what users respond well to, and I'd say if their data shows that it's big images and more text, they're probably right. Keep in mind, you'll have a very low bounce rate if users do NOT find what they want on that page, but think they might by clicking the button next to one of the hotels. If they bail out after that, it still won't look like a bounce in the stats.
You could also consider changing up the layout a bit so that the search hotels form is off to the right (maybe 1000 pixel mark or so), pull in the first sentence or so from the hotel description, and use the larger image of the hotel there.
You also have a lot of vertical whitespace in there. While your style is very Web 2.0 and clean, an open style with a lot of whitespace unfortunately does push most of the content a fair bit down the page.
-
Hi Michael,
firstly, thanks so much for your very thorough reply - I really appreciate it.
I really think it's fundamental that the Hotels tab remains as the initial tab, simply because it's what the main aim of the user's visit is likely to be - I think that immediately presenting the user with the key information is pretty essential, and will hopefully keep bounce rate and conversion rate at respectable levels. However, displaying the map by default could be a good move - I think the reason against doing this in the past was that I might not be able to rely on the map being served up immediately, as it could be fetched slowly from Google - I guess that's still something to consider - if the user is greeted with an empty screen (where the map should be), then they are pretty likely to bounce.
Good point about the cloaking function name - not the most sensible idea I've ever had
How important do you think "above the fold" content is? I mean, would it make sense to somehow include the venue reviews information at the bottom of the page, rather than on the separate tab? Although this review content wouldn't be above the fold, it would be visible to the user (albeit further down the page). Do you think that is likely to carry more weight in Google's eyes than having the same content, but not immediately visible to the user (hidden in tabs).
I think this is my main problem - combining my pages together into this new design is great, since it eliminates the likelihood of thin pages. However, I've now got so much information on each venue that it's difficult to find a clear way to present it, at the same time as satisfying the search engines. My user's like the Hotels tab at the minute (reflected in a high conversion rate, and low bounce rate), as it's really clear - the relative lack of text makes it pretty clear and easy to use. However, while user's are liking it, the search engines aren't.
I hate the fact that I might have to sacrifice user friendliness in order to satisfy the needs of the search engines, but I guess that's part of running a business that relies on SEO.
Thanks again,
Mike
-
So I think what's important here is to distinguish between a couple of different measurements that Google is going to make on your page in order to determine its quality (i.e. Panda evaluation of the page). One of the measurements is going to be of the total content on the page, and here you're going to do pretty well, as you've got a lot of text, some photos, an embedded map, marked-up reviews, etc.
One of the other measurements Panda does is of what percentage of the screen real estate "above the fold" is CONTENT, and here you're not going to do so well. While we don't know exactly how Panda determines what's content and what's template, navigation, etc., it's likely that they're looking at least partially at what's clickable on the screen (that's navigation, ads, etc.) vs. non-clickable. And really, on that page, you have just a couple of phrases and really no images that aren't clickable (except for tiny logos).
My suggestions:
- re-layout the page to increase the % of the page above the fold that's content...whether that means making the initial tab the Overview tab, or adjusting white space, etc.
- use the larger hotel images rather than the smaller thumbnails, and use a little button or link to launch the entire gallery...this way you'll have a moderate-sized image on the page that's NOT clickable, so it's more likely to be seen as content
- I'd really recommend renaming the Jscript function that pops up the image. Calling anything "cloaking" on the page is really poking Google in the eye with a stick, if you know what I mean!
- if you want to keep the Hotels list page as the initial tab, then how about starting with the map of all of the hotel locations? You have that built already anyway, and it's surely one of the more important things people would be looking at when coming to this page.
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
-
Facet Values as Anchor text
Hi I've reviewing our internal linking structure & have found that the facets/filter buttons on a category, are crawled and have anchor text to each link, for example: The anchor text to filter the product listing results by those under £50 would be: | Facet Value Less than £50.00 (15) Less than £50.00 (15) | This also has the source URL & destination URL of http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers I haven't come across this before - is this an issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Fetch as Google
I have odd scenario I don't know if anyone can help? I've done some serious speed optimisation on a website, amongst other things CDN and caching. However when I do a Search Console Fetch As Google It is still showing 1.7 seconds download time even though the cached content seems to be delivered in less than 200 ms. The site is using SSL which obviously creams off a bit of speed, but I still don't understand the huge discrepancy. Could it be that Google somehow is forcing the server to deliver fresh content despite settings to deliver cache? Thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoman100 -
Copyright Theft and Google Rankings
Here is another tough one we've been dealing with. We publish a niche book. For a decade we kept the information offline (no e-books). However, it was widely scanned and reproduced online. We've filed dozens of DMCA complaints over the years, but have found trying to rid the internet entirely of these infringing pages to be futile. We get 1 closed and find 3 more. Two years ago we decided to put the information online ourselves, to generate an official community for our work it instead of "fighting it". We built a full site with hundreds of pages from the book for readers to use, free. Google indexed us, and we followed basic SEO... But in spite of a prime aged domain and a lot of links, we are literally BURIED in google. There are dozens of complete garbage spam sites that rank way higher than us. I understand ranking takes time, and the niche is competitive. But the low quality landing pages that are ranking above us is just too confusing. We fear our work has been indexed by google so much over the years on other sites they will never connect it to us. We'll always be buried on page 14 as another scrape. What would you do to correct this for a client? Could you?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RetBit0 -
Reporting Webspam to Google
We are in ecommerce, and there are a few review sites that are dominating the rankings for our products. The sites are very good - very well written content (2000+ words) and visually appealing sites. The 2 main culprits are clearly black hat. One site's backlinks are pure spam, and the other is buying footer and sidebar links. Will ratting them to Google have any impact? If not, any suggestions on how to compete? Our competing pages are product descriptions, and creating a 2000 word product description seems inappropriate. Also, all of these products are brand new, and due to extensive media spends, the search volume is very high. Since they are beating us to the punch by getting good content posted first, they are proving difficult to displace.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Is tabbed content bad for SEO?
I work for a Theater show listings and ticketing website. In our show listings pages (e.g. http://www.theatermania.com/broadway/this-is-our-youth_302998/) we split our content into separate tabs (overview, pricing and show dates, cast, and video). Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by separating the content? Are we better served with keeping it all in a single page? Thanks so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
Structured Data Questions
I am showing 2 items with errors. These products have both been removed from the site, and will trigger a 404 Page Not Found. I am still seeing the page URLs in Webmaster Central > Search Appearance > Structured Data. They are shown as items with errors, the errors being that they are missing price too. Should I 301 redirect these on an htaccess file, or should I remove the page url in some other way from Google? Also, I have a site with over 50,000 products and 2,000 category level pages. In Structured Data, there are only 2,848 items. Does it seem like Google is collecting very little data compared to how many urls I have on my site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | djlittman0 -
Google Places Drop
Hi everyone! I have a client that was ranking very nicely for a number of keywords. In the 5 pack for most of the keywords we were targeting. His account went under review for some unknown reason about 2 months ago. It disappeared from the listing... Then a few weeks ago it became approved again. He is now no longer ranking for any of those keywords. He is ranking for some obscure ones but the money words are gone. Do you think this was due to the review? Some sort of GP update over the last 60 days? All of my other clients are still ranking strong in Google Places. Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeattleJoe0 -
De-indexed by Google! ?
So it looks as though the content from myprgenie.com is no longer being indexed. Anyone know what happened and what they can do to fix it fast?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | siteoptimized0