Is "Above the Fold Content" still a thing?
-
Many of our pages have the textual content stuffed at the bottom of the page because the manager doesn't think anybody reads it and it is an eyesore to have at the top: http://www.stevinsontoyotawest.com/schedule-service
For some light reading here is Google’s official blog talking about content quality:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html This references Ads vs Content showing above the fold. However, in our case it has to do with images vs ads and stuffing text at the bottom of pages.Here is a bit of heavier reading. You can do a quick search for "Fold" to see their interpretation.
http://macedynamics.com/research/content-quality-score/I understand that images are still content, however hardly any of the images have Alt text and they are not even named with keywords so Google really can't distinguish what the page is about through images alone. I'm not about to go through the entire site and add Alt text and rename images because I have much more to do on my plate.
So, the questions is: Is stuffing content at the bottom of the page, below all images/inventory/widgets ok to do or should we stick with the eyesore content at the top of the page? Thoughts?
-
I don't think you need to worry about it. I think what this blog was talking about is more people who do spam content way down the page under the footer kind of thing.
I think if you build a good website which has content below the fold I wouldn't be worried at all. I have clients who rank for some very hard keywords and for conversion we have less above the fold so it's pushing them to do one of our call to actions.
Always remember google wants you to build a website which users like not a website that google likes.
-
Hey Aaron,
I agree that if I add spammy content to any page that it will hurt rankings because I'm adding content to just add content. However, I don't agree that simply by forcing the content to the top (as Google suggests we do in the official Google Blog mentioned above) that it will hurt rankings. Like I said, the only issue is that my manager thinks it is an eyesore. I do think that if it is well worded and good content that people will end up reading it and learning more about what the page is about. The only thing I want to know is if the official Google blog post is still relevant as it was written in 2012. Structure, Design and UX have changed a lot since then. How big of a factor is Content Above the Fold vs Below in 2015?
-
always work off this. If you're putting content there because it's to help google than yes it's going to hurt you but if it's part of the website the design it's fine.
The sites i have seen be hit are ones where people have put content below the footer itself or it looks like spam.
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
-
Duplicate Content and Subdirectories
Hi there and thank you in advance for your help! I'm seeking guidance on how to structure a resources directory (white papers, webinars, etc.) while avoiding duplicate content penalties. If you go to /resources on our site, there is filter function. If you filter for webinars, the URL becomes /resources/?type=webinar We didn't want that dynamic URL to be the primary URL for webinars, so we created a new page with the URL /resources/webinar that lists all of our webinars and includes a featured webinar up top. However, the same webinar titles now appear on the /resources page and the /resources/webinar page. Will that cause duplicate content issues? P.S. Not sure if it matters, but we also changed the URLs for the individual resource pages to include the resource type. For example, one of our webinar URLs is /resources/webinar/forecasting-your-revenue Thank you!
Technical SEO | | SAIM_Marketing0 -
Ranking penalty for "accordion" content -- hidden prior to user interaction
Will content inside an "accordion" module be ranked as non-hidden content? Is there an official guide by google and other search engines addressing this? Example of accordion element: https://v4-alpha.getbootstrap.com/components/collapse/#accordion-example Will all elements in the example above be seen + treated equally by search engines?
Technical SEO | | houlihanlokey1 -
Content in Accordion doesn't rank as well as Content in Text box?
Does content rank better in a full view text layout, rather than in a clickable accordion? I read somewhere because users need to click into an accordion it may not rank as well, as it may be considered hidden on the page - is this true? accordion example: see features: https://www.workday.com/en-us/applications/student.html
Technical SEO | | DigitalCRO1 -
Link rel="prev" AND canonical
Hi guys, When you have several tabs on your website with products, you can most likely navigate to page 2, 3, 4 etc...
Technical SEO | | AdenaSEO
You can add the link rel="prev" and link rel="next" tags to make sure that 1 page get's indexed / ranked by Google. am I correct? However this still means that all the pages can get indexed, right? For example a webshop makes use of the link rel="prev" and ="next" tags. In the Google results page though, all the seperate tabs pages are still visible/indexed..
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=1
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=24
http://www.domain.nl/watches/?tab=19
etc..... Can we prevent this, and make sure only the main page get's indexed and ranked, by adding a canonical link on every 'tab page' to the main page --> www.domain.nl/watches/ I hope I explained it well and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, Tom1 -
Do I need to verify my site on webmaster both with and without the "www." at the start?
As per title, is it necessary to verify a site on webmaster twice, with and without the "www"? I only ask as I'm about to submit a disavow request, and have just read this: NB: Make sure you verify both the http:website.com and http://www.website.com versions of your site and submit the links disavow file for each. Google has said that they view these as completely different sites so it’s important not to forget this step. (here) Is there anything in this? It strikes me as more than a bit odd that you need to submit a site twice.
Technical SEO | | mgane0 -
If content is at the bottom of the page but the code is at the top, does Google know that the content is at the bottom?
I'm working on creating content for top category pages for an ecommerce site. I can put them under the left hand navigation bar, and that content would be near the top in the code. I can also put the content at the bottom center, where it would look nicer but be at the bottom of the code. What's the better approach? Thanks for reading!
Technical SEO | | DA20130 -
What is "evttag=" used for?
I see evttag= used on realtor.com, what looks to be for click tracking purposes. Does anyone know if this is an official standard or something they made up?
Technical SEO | | JDatSB0 -
Correct 301 of domain inclusive "/"
Do I have to redirect "/" in the domain by default? My root domain is e.g. petra.at
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
--> I redirect via 301 to www.petra.at Do I have to do that with petra.at/ and www.petra.at/, too?0