Heading Tags & Content Count
-
Hi everyone
I am looking into this page on our site http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/sack-trucks
Just comparing it against competitors in SEMRush, the tool shows a wordcount of this page for over 4089 words, compared with http://www.wickes.co.uk/Wickes-Green-General-Purpose-Sack-Truck-200kg/p/500302 which only has 2658 - it has a lot more written content than our page - where is this word count coming from?
Also looking at the same page on our site Woorank suggests we have the word 'sack truck' in the h1 and title too many times - it's only there once, but its this showing because its an exact match keyword?
I'm just wondering if there is something wrong with the html or how the page is being crawed?
-
It's something I'll talk to the developers about, thank you
-
Well there are many ways to hide something in content. But why you hiding it since user can't see it? Isn't better to make this in
-
Yes, I am not great at reading html, I know it is bad for hiding written content.
Does this apply if it looks to be hiding anything?
-
It's bad even if you use once. This could be cloaking technique.
-
Thank you Peter!
I'll take a look at those links you sent me. Is the use of display none a bad thing if used over 61 times?
-
Great thank you I have tried the Keyword Difficulty tool
Yes I was just look at the top ranking sites in Google to see what they were doing differently
Thanks!
-
Your HTML looks fine.
I used screaming frog to scan both pages. As Peter Nikolow says, different tools have different ways of coming up with word counts. Screaming frog says your page has 3910 words and your competitor (wickes), 3714. So they're very close. I trust screaming frog. It's a popular tool among SEOs.
I also wouldn't worry about Woorank's suggestion that you have the words "sack truck" too many times in the H1 and title tag. You're fine there too, following best practices.
Why are you asking these questions? Are you trying to figure out why wickes is outranking you? If that's the case, I suggest you try a side-by-side comparison using the keyword difficulty tool here on Moz.
-
TL;DR - word count of WHAT?
Different tools have different metrics. Let's bust myth of HTML wordcounts!
So first open both pages and view their sources. Key have 9575 lines and Wickes is just 1854. Seems that one of page is little bit large. Let's try this with tool:
http://www.seoreviewtools.com/bulk-web-page-word-count-checker/
just paste both links, solve captcha and push button. And you will see that Key is with more keywords. Now let's try with tool #2:
http://textmechanic.com/text-tools/basic-text-tools/count-characters-words-lines/
just go in Key (not in page source, just view page in browser), select all, copy, go in tool #2 and paste. Make same check with Wickes.Why this happens? Because different methodology of calculation. First tool go in HTML and grab everything in as words for calculation with stripped HTML tags, special symbols, etc. He show us number X and we are agreed that this IS correct number. In second tool you paste (BTW - you can make same calculation with Word, just go in Paste Special and paste as TEXT ONLY!) everything what user see and he show you correct number of words like Y.
So due different methodology why X is different than Y? Because you may have some ajax code, invisible layouts, and/or other HTML mess. For example in Key site i can clearly see DIV with display:none with heavy content. And this happens 61 times!
Now i hope that this give you answer why X and Y are different and both are correct at same time. Because counting methodology is different.
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
-
Canonical Tag help
Hello everyone, We have implemented canonical tag on our website: http://www.indialetsplay.com/ For e.g. on http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=42 we added canonical as http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers?limit=all (as it showcase all products) Our default page is http://www.indialetsplay.com/cycling-rollers Is canonical tag implementation right? Or we need to add any other URL. Please suggest
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Obbserv0 -
Link Reclimation & Redirects
Hello, I'm in the middle of a link reclamation project wherein we're identifying broken links, links pointing to dupe content etc. I found a forgotten co-brand which is effectively dupe content across 8 sub-domains, some of which have a significant number of links (200+ linking domains | 2k+ in-bound links). Question for the group is what's the optimal redirect option? Option 1: set 301 and maintain 1:1 URL mapping will pass all equity to applicable PLPs and theoretically improve rank for related keyword(s). requires a bit more configuration time and will likely have small effect on rank given links are widely distributed across URLs. Option 2: set 301 to redirect all requests to the associated sub-domain e.g. foo.mybrand.cobrand.com/page1.html and foo.mybrand.cobrand.com/page2 both redirect to foo.mybrand.com/ will accumulate all equity at the sub-domain level which theoretically will be roughly distributed throughout underlying pages and will limit risk of penalty to that sub-domain. Option 3: set 301 to redirect all requests to our homepage. easiest to configure & maintain, will accumulate the maximum equity on a priority page which should positively affect domain authority. run risk of being penalized for accumulating links en mass, risk penalty for spammy links on our primary sub-domain www, won't pass keyword specific equity to applicable pages. To be clear, I've done an initial scrub of anchor text and there were no signs of spam. I'm leaning towards #3, but interested in others perspectives. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PCampolo
Stefan0 -
Philosophy & Deep Thoughts On Tag/Category URLs
Hello, SEO Gurus! First off, my many thanks to this community for all of your past help and perspective. This is by far the most valuable SEO community on the web, and it is precisely because of all of you being here. Thanks! I've recently kicked off a robust niche biotech news publishing site for a client, and in the first 6 weeks, we've generated 15K+ views and 9300 visits. The site is built on the WordPress platform. I'm well aware that a best practice is to noindex tag and category pages, as I've heard SEOs say that they potentially lead to duplicate content issues. We're using tags and categories heavily, and to date, we've had just 282 visits from tag & category pages. So, that's 2.89% of our traffic; the vast majority of traffic has landed on the homepage or article pages (we are using author markup). Here's my question, though, and it's more philosophical: do these pages really cause a duplicate content issue? Isn't Google able to determine that said page is a tag page, and thus not worthy of duplicate content penalties? If not, then why not? To me, tag/category pages are sometimes better content pages to have ranked than article pages, since, for news especially, they potentially give searchers a better search result (particularly for short tail keywords). For example, if I write articles all the time about the Mayo Clinic," I'd rather have my evergreen "Mayo Clinic" tag page rank on page one for the keyword "mayo clinic" than just one specific article that very quickly drops out of the news cycle. Know what I mean? So, to summarize: 1. Are doindexed tag/category pages really a duplicate content problem, and if so, why the heck? 2. Is there a strategy for ranking tag/category pages for news publishing sites ahead of article pages? Thanks as always for your time and attention. Kind Regards, Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RCNOnlineMarketing0 -
Are pages with a canonical tag indexed?
Hello here, here are my questions for you related to the canonical tag: 1. If I put online a new webpage with a canonical tag pointing to a different page, will this new page be indexed by Google and will I be able to find it in the index? 2. If instead I apply the canonical tag to a page already in the index, will this page be removed from the index? Thank you in advance for any insights! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Do links from twitter count in SEOMoz's Toolbar link count?
I am using the Chrome extension and looking at a SERP, when a page is said to have 2000 incoming links, does that include tweets with a link back to this page? What about retweets. Are those counted separately or as one? And what about independent tweets that have exactly the same content (tweet text + link)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | davhad0 -
Should we use the rel-canonical tag?
We have a secure version of our site, as we often gather sensitive business information from our clients. Our https pages have been indexed as well as our http version. Could it still be a problem to have an http and an https version of our site indexed by Google? Is this seen as being a duplicate site? If so can this be resolved with a rel=canonical tag pointing to the http version? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | annieplaskett1 -
H1 Tags and HTML5
I have read that now you can have multiple h1 tags on a page without it negatively impacting SEO. Previously it was advised to only have 1 h1 tag on a page. Example: with the new semantic mark up you could have separate h1 tags for the header, article, aside and footer. Is this really the case?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bronxpad0 -
How can I remove duplicate content & titles from my site?
Without knowing I created multiple URLs to the same page destinations on my website. My ranking is poor and I need to fix this problem quickly. My web host doesn't understand the problem!!! How can I use canonical tags? Can somebody help, please.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ZoeAlexander0