Content Below the Fold
-
Hi
I wondered what the view is on content below the fold?
We have the H1, product listings & then some written content under the products - will Google just ignore this?
I can't hide it under a tab or put a lot of content above products - so I'm not sure what the other option is?
Thank you
-
Hi Becky,
Here is what I found:
The pros and cons of hiding content using JavaScript and CSS (display: none) has been a topic of some debate within the SEO industry, and Google’s comments over time have somewhat added to the confusion.
- **November 2014 **– Google’s John Mueller stated that Google _“may not” _index or rank hidden content. In aGoogle+ Hangout the following month, John repeated this, stating that hidden content would be _“discounted”_and has been for a number of years
- **21 July 2015 **– Google’s Gary Illyes, contributing to a Stack Overflow forum thread , provided clarification of this by stating that this type of content is given “way less weight in ranking”
- **27 July 2015 **– In a separate Stack Overflow thread on the same topic, Gary Illyes again confirmed that _“[Google] will index that but the content’s weight will be lower since it’s hidden” _
So the content will still be indexed, but deemed less important by the crawlers.
-
Yeh it's disappointing.
I've tried having some content behind a tab and some under the products and I am not seeing either one as having much of an effect.
Unless I remove it altogether, I'm not sure what else I can do with it?
-
Hi
Yes I tried different pages and it's still the same. I think it's to do with things we have blocked in robots.txt...
-
I'm not seeing a problem in my GoogleBot simulators, Becky, but the one within your Google Search Console is still the best judge. Have you tried reloading the Fetch as... a couple of times? And tried it on different pages?
-
Yup - Google still says content that can only be seen after a user interaction is given less importance. Kinda stupid, given that things like tabs/accordians are a major usability enhancement, but that's still where we are.
P.
-
Hi
So I did fetch as Google - and I'm seeing the page quite differently if I'm Googlebot vs. visitors.
It just sees a few big images, I can't see it rendering any product listings or content - do I now have a bigger problem?
Thank you
-
Hi
Thank you for the replies. I don't want to hide it, I just can't have it pushing products down the page so they can't be seen..
I thought in Google webmaster guidelines they included a comment to say they will ignore content behind tabs?
Becky
-
Any content below the fold will still be read. Are you trying to hide it but still get the SEO value? If that's the case, I would create a collapsible tab to keep the content on the page but hidden. If you want it to be visible, leave it as is and don't worry about Google not reading it—it will be read.
-
While theoretically logical, Google's own John Mueller stated last week that code to text ratio has absolutely no effect on crawling of a site, and in a followup question, he directly told me text/code ratio has no effect as a ranking factor either.
These used to be very minor considerations back when the search engine crawlers weren't as powerful, but no longer.
Fully agree with Pia that the idea of "above the fold" influencing ranking is nonsense as well. Given that the sweet spot for consistently high-ranking pages is ~2200 words, the idea that only the first paragraph or two are more important is unsupportable.
Hope that helps?
Paul
-
Additionally, do check the content using Fetch as google in Google Search Console / Webmaster tools. It would really help you see how spiders see the content compared to users. This is an important aspect of SEO which a lot of people ignore, you are looking to find that whether the spiders see a structured view of the content and not messy. I hope this helps, if you have further questions, please feel free to ask. Regards, Vijay
-
There's no manipulation whatsoever. In fact, Google encourage website developers and SEOs to optimise/tidy their code and keep a good code-to-content ratio. This is why Google gives us so many tools in order to do so. It makes our sites easier to crawl for Google, and in return Google may even like us more for it!
Just found an article that sums it up quite nicely:
"Essentially what is being stated is a fairly logical conclusion: reduce the amount of code on your page and the content (you know, the place where your keywords are) takes a higher priority. Additionally compliance will, by necessity, make your site easy to crawl and, additionally, allow you greater control over which portions of your content are given more weight by the search engines. The thinking behind validating code for SEO benefits is that, once you have a compliant site, not only will your site be a better user experience on a much larger number of browsers, but you’ll have a site with far less code, that will rank higher on the search engines because of it."
- http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/official-google-prefers-valid-html-css/
But going back to your original post, "above-the-fold is dead", yadda yadda... So long as your content in the source is metaphorically "above the fold" and not drowning in heavy code, on the page itself just worry about giving your users the "experience" that they're looking for. And not how many pixels from the top of the browser your content is. Hope that makes more sense!
-
Great thank you, you read so many conflicting articles that it's difficult to know.
I'll see if we can look at our code, but I'd want to be mindful of not manipulating Google.
Thank you!
-
I feel prioritising elements to be "above the fold" is a bit of an outdated concept these days.
Where is the fold? Different devices and screen resolutions will have different folds, and more websites are being designed now to make the traditional "above the fold" section more visually interesting and designed for user experience, rather than packed full of content.
The higher the content is in the source code itself, the more weight it will have on the page. This doesn't necessarily translate to the "visually higher the content is on the page". Google is going to be reading from top to bottom of your code, so naturally you want the most important content/links to be found first. As long as you meet (or exceed!) the user's expectation of the content upon arrival, and you keep the code tidy in terms of how much Google has to read before it gets to the real valuable content, I doubt Google's going to worry about whether users have to scroll a little to get to it.
-
Hi Becky,
As far as i understand Google will not ignore however Google do treat some part of the page as more important than other. For instance, if you have written a description of the product and some of the description is been hide.
Google, will take that as the important piece of content been displayed for user and least important been hide.
I do not see any point for Google to ignore the fold one. -
Content below the fold is still read, however less value is placed on it. So it is still worth having content that is produced for below the fold as it will still help that page rank.
Show the user what they want to see when they land on the page, majority of the time in doing this you will actually show Google what they need to rank you.
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 Question With New Domain
Hey Everyone, I hope your day is going well. I have a question regarding duplicate content. Let's say that we have Website A and Website B. Website A is a directory for multiple stores & brands. Website B is a new domain that will satisfy the delivery niche for these multiple stores & brands (where they can click on a "Delivery" anchor on Website A and it'll redirect them to Website B). We want Website B to rank organically when someone types in " <brand>delivery" in Google. Website B has NOT been created yet. The Issue Website B has to be a separate domain than Website A (no getting around this). Website B will also pull all of the content from Website A (menus, reviews, about, etc). Will we face any duplicate content issues on either Website A or Website B in the future? Should we rel=canonical to the main website even though we want Website B to rank organically?</brand>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | imjonny0 -
SEO: How to change page content + shift its original content to other page at the same time?
Hello, I want to replace the content of one page of our website (already indexeed) and shift its original content to another page. How can I do this without problems like penalizations etc? Current situation: Page A
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | daimpa
URL: example.com/formula-1
Content: ContentPageA Desired situation: Page A
URL: example.com/formula-1
Content: NEW CONTENT! Page B
URL: example.com/formula-1-news
Content: ContentPageA (The content that was in Page A!) Content of the two pages will be about the same argument (& same keyword) but non-duplicate. The new content in page A is more optimized for search engines. How long will it take for the page to rank better?0 -
Duplicate Content: Is a product feed/page rolled out across subdomains deemed duplicate content?
A company has a TLD (top-level-domain) which every single product: company.com/product/name.html The company also has subdomains (tailored to a range of products) which lists a choosen selection of the products from the TLD - sort of like a feed: subdomain.company.com/product/name.html The content on the TLD & subdomain product page are exactly the same and cannot be changed - CSS and HTML is slightly differant but the content (text and images) is exactly the same! My concern (and rightly so) is that Google will deem this to be duplicate content, therfore I'm going to have to add a rel cannonical tag into the header of all subdomain pages, pointing to the original product page on the TLD. Does this sound like the correct thing to do? Or is there a better solution? Moving on, not only are products fed onto subdomain, there are a handfull of other domains which list the products - again, the content (text and images) is exactly the same: other.com/product/name.html Would I be best placed to add a rel cannonical tag into the header of the product pages on other domains, pointing to the original product page on the actual TLD? Does rel cannonical work across domains? Would the product pages with a rel cannonical tag in the header still rank? Let me know if there is a better solution all-round!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iam-sold0 -
What are your thoughts on Content Automation?
Hi, I want to ask forum members’ opinion on content automation. And before I raise the eyebrows of many of you with this question, I’d like to state I am creating content and doing SEO for my own website so I’m not looking to cut corners with spammy tactics that could hurt my website from an organic search perspective. The goal is to automate pages in the areas of headings, Meta Titles, Meta Descriptions, and perhaps a paragraph of content. More importantly, I’d like these pages to add value to the users experience so the question is…. How do I go about automating the pages, and more specifically, how is meta title, meta descriptions etc. automated? I’d also like to hear from people that recommend steering clear of any form of content automation. I hope my question isn’t too bit vague and I look forward to hearing from other Mozzers. Regards, Russell in South Africa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shamima0 -
Is an RSS feed considered duplicate content?
I have a large client with satellite sites. The large site produces many news articles and they want to put an RSS feed on the satellite sites that will display the articles from the large site. My question is, will the rss feeds on the satellite sites be considered duplicate content? If yes, do you have a suggestion to utilize the data from the large site without being penalized? If no, do you have suggestions on what tags should be used on the satellite pages? EX: wrapped in tags? THANKS for the help. Darlene
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXeSEO0 -
Aggregators outranking me for my own content
WARNING : The follow question is for an adult website. If you are at work, near children or are offended by such material, DO NOT CLICK Hey guys, This one has had me stumped for awhile. I operate www.deviantclip.com. Its a very old and trusted domain by google with loads of history. However, in the past year, Google has been giving me the cold shoulder. One major problem I've noticed is that I've lost all longtail traffic. Its even gotten to the point where aggregators are outranking me in google for my own custom titles and content. **Example A : ** Google Link 1 This search has my own sitename in the title and my site ranks somewhere on page 2 or further. **Example B : ** Google Link 2 This content originated from our site and has a unique title, yet we're dead last in the serps. I submitted my site for reconsideration a few times, and the outcome everytime is that Google tells me they have not applied any manual penalty. There are a TON of issues to adress with this site, but obviously, getting my own content to rank first is the primary problem I would like to fix. Your time and advice is greatly appreciated. If you need furter info, don't be afraid to ask.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CrakJason0 -
Capitals in url creates duplicate content?
Hey Guys, I had a quick look around however I couldn't find a specific answer to this. Currently, the SEOmoz tools come back and show a heap of duplicate content on my site. And there's a fair bit of it. However, a heap of those errors are relating to random capitals in the urls. for example. "www.website.com.au/Home/information/Stuff" is being treated as duplicate content of "www.website.com.au/home/information/stuff" (Note the difference in capitals). Anyone have any recommendations as to how to fix this server side(keeping in mind it's not practical or possible to fix all of these links) or to tell Google to ignore the capitalisation? Any help is greatly appreciated. LM.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CarlS0