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
-
Novice Question - Can Browsers realistically distinguish words within concatenated strings e.g. text55fun or should one use text-55-fun? What about foreign languages especially more obscure ones like Finnish which Google Translate often miss-translates?
I am attempting to understand what is realistically possible within Google, Yahoo and Bing as they search websites for KeyWords. Technically my understanding is that they should be able to distinguish common words within concatenated strings, although there can be confusion between word boundaries when ambiguity is involved. So in the simple example of text55fun, do search engines actually distinguish text, 55 and fun separately? There are practical processing, databased and algorithm limitations that might turn a technically possible solution into a unrealistic one at a commercial scale. What about more ambiguous strings like stringsstrummingstrongly would that be parsed as string s strummings trongly or strings strummings trongly or strings strumming strongly? Does one need to use dashes or underscores to make it unambiguous to the search engine? My guess is that the engine would recognize the dash or space and better understand the word boundaries yet ignore the dash or underscore from an overall concatenated string perspective. Thanks in advance to whoever can provide any insight to an old coder who is new to this field.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ny600 -
Google Listings
How can i make my pages appear in google results such as menu, diner, hours, contact us etc.. when some searches for my keyword or domain take a look at this screen shot Thanks UbqY4kwA UbqY4kwA
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vlad_mezoz0 -
Best url structure
I am making a new site for a company that services many cities. I was thinking a url structure like this, website.com/keyword1-keyword2-keyword3/cityname1-cityname2-cityname3-cityname4-cityname5. Will this be the best approach to optimize the site for the keyword plus 5 different cities ? as long as I keep the total url characters under the SeoMoz reccomended 115 characters ? Or would it be better to build separate pages for each city, trying to reword the main services to try to avoid dulpicate content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jlane90 -
How to Block Google Preview?
Hi, Our site is very good for Javascript-On users, however many pages are loaded via AJAX and are inaccessible with JS-off. I'm looking to make this content available with JS-off so Search Engines can access them, however we don't have the Dev time to make them 'pretty' for JS-off users. The idea is to make them accessible with JS-off, but when requested by a user with JS-on the user is forwarded to the 'pretty' AJAX version. The content (text, images, links, videos etc) is exactly the same but it's an enormous amount of effort to make the JS-off version 'pretty' and I can't justify the development time to do this. The problem is that Googlebot will index this page and show a preview of the ugly JS-off page in the preview on their results - which isn't good for the brand. Is there a way or meta code that can be used to stop the preview but still have it cached? My current options are to use the meta noarchive or "Cache-Control" content="no-cache" to ask Google to stop caching the page completely, but wanted to know if there was a better way of doing this? Any ideas guys and girls? Thanks FashionLux
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FashionLux0 -
How to improve Google Places Account
Hello, A friend of mine has a google places account. Her website is http://debidonner.com/ You can see her places account listed under "life coach scottsdale arizona" I've attached a screenshot of her categories. I just added "NLP Coach" and "Personal Coach" today, so results are only for the other categories. We're looking for ways to improve it. We've had 43 clicks for driving directions. 4 map clicks, and 0 website clicks (how good is that, by the way) Thanks! screenshot-google-places.jpg screenshot-google-places2.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Google Page Rank Dead?
Does PR still work? I have sites that have PR3 and get almost no traffic and sites that are PR1 and get thousands of uniques per month. My PR on my main sites haven't moved for about 7 years, even though we've grown significantly. I know lots of you are going to jump in with get the MOZ toolbar, which I already have done, and I agree, it's great ... But can anyone tell me about what's going on with Google PR? Is it still active? Or has Google abandoned? I noticed that the Google toolbar is not even available for Google Chrome. That should say something ... If you like this question, do me a favor, and give me a THUMBS UP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | applesofgold2 -
Google +1 and Yslow
After adding Google's +1 script and call to our site (loading asynchronously), we noticed Yslow is giving us a D for not having expire headers for the following scripts: https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GKLA
https:///ga.js
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com... 1. Is their a workaround for this issue, so expire headers are added to to plusone and GA script? Or, are we being to nit-picky about this issue?0 -
Fading Text Links Look Like Spammy Hidden Links to a g-bot?
Ah, Hello Mozzers, it's been a while since I was here. Wanted to run something by you... I'm looking to incorporate some fading text using Javascript onto a site homepage using the method described here; http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades/ so, my question is; does anyone think that Google might see this text as a possible dark hat SEO anchor text manipulation (similar to hidden links)? The text will contain various links (4 or 5) that will cycle through one another, fading in and out, but to a bot the text may appear initially invisible, like so; style="display: none;"><a href="">Link Here</a> All links will be internal. My gut instinct is that I'm just being stupid here, but I wanted to stay on the side of caution with this one! Thanks for your time 🙂 http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0