homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.148.189
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
How many <h1> in one page we can have?
punitseo




msg:708047
 4:14 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi guys

Just need opinion from experts how many <h1> we can have from SEO point of view

Will spider give extra weight if write something

<h1>Keywords 1</h1> (Main Keywords
<h1>Keywords 2</h1> (Secondary keywords)
<h1>Keywords 3</h1>

etc..

Or this would be better

<h1>Keywords 1</h1> (Main Keyword)
<h2>Keywords 2</h2> (Secondary Keywords)
<h3>Keywords 3</h3>(Combination of Main and Secondary keywords)

Which one will work better in above 2 examples?

[w3.org...]

[w3.org...]

 

birdstuff




msg:708048
 5:10 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Option #2...

Pico_Train




msg:708049
 5:14 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Option 2, you should probably stick to one <H1> tag per page.

reseller




msg:708050
 5:26 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

After allegra (3rd Feb 2005) where several of my pages lost their top positions for competative keyphrases, I have experimented with removing the <h1>Title of content</h1> and writing the title in the font size as the rest of the page.

Later when my site have started recovering gradually, some of the pages without <h1></h1> have recovered too.

Yahoo keep sending visitors to the same pages.

So I wonder now of the importance of <h1><h2><h3> in modern (after allegra) SEO .

Rollo




msg:708051
 5:43 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Option #2 by far. Option #1 is entering the spam zone.

pageoneresults




msg:708052
 5:47 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Option 2 is the semantically correct option. But, it may be a little different than what you have shown above...

<h1>Main Heading - What's the page about?</h1>
<p></p>
<h2>Sub-Heading - What's the next paragraph or two about?</h2>
<p></p>
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
<h3>Sub-Sub-Heading - What's the next paragraph about under the Sub-Heading</h3>
<p></p>
etc...

It's not a matter of stuffing them with keyword phrases. That should come naturally if you are using headings to describe what comes after them. Look at some of the examples provided by the W3C.

So I wonder now of the importance of <h1><h2><h3> in modern (after allegra) SEO.

Don't look at it from an SEO standpoint. Look at it from a structuring standpoint. Think about the user first, the rest will follow naturally. The main focus here is how everything flows and reads to the visitor.

reseller




msg:708053
 8:11 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults

<Don't look at it from an SEO standpoint.>

Actually, unitseo asked in the first post of this thread:

<Just need opinion from experts how many <h1> we can have from SEO point of view>

Therefore :-)

<Look at it from a structuring standpoint. Think about the user first, the rest will follow naturally. The main focus here is how everything flows and reads to the visitor.>

With all due respect, what you mentioned is what I call "Classic SEO" which I believe is just about to be outdated.

Everything could "flows" without the need for a title in <h1>.

For most publishers, especially business sites publishers, the most important is traffic and a user friendly site which can convert visitors to buyers (customers). Traffic could be either purchased or better generated through high organic positions on the serps as a result of modern SEO.

The difference of classic SEO (which is static) and modern SEO is that the later is a DYNAMIC one matching at any given time the changes in the way pages are positioned on the serps.
If for reasons I mentioned in previous posts on another thread, Google decided to penalize sites which got their high positions on the serps by following classic SEO thoughts and techniques, there will be no logical reason(s) to keep following those outdated thoughts and techniques accordingly.

Other than my own test on my site, of course I have no solid facts to prove that <h1><h2><h3> are totally out of the SEO equation.

pageoneresults




msg:708054
 8:18 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Other than my own test on my site, of course I have no solid facts to prove that <h1><h2><h3> are totally out of the SEO equation.

Do you actually think the search engines are going to dictate proper site structure and design? Do you feel that sites using semantic structuring are being assessed penalties because they are following what has been written since the inception of the web?

Using proper containing elements when writing html/xhtml is a fundamental concept and one which many are just now realizing exists. Before it was drop everything on a page in one big block element broken up with <br><br>s to provide visual separation.

Nothing is dated when it comes to using proper markup to structure a page. Sure, elements become deprecated but that is the nature of the beast.

The difference of classic SEO (which is static) and modern SEO is that the later is a DYNAMIC one matching at any given time the changes in the way pages are positioned on the serps.

Hmmm, I've never really gotten into the algo chasing. It appears that my design philosphies work rather well without worrying about what Google is weighting differently this month. ;)

reseller




msg:708055
 8:35 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults

<Do you feel that sites using semantic structuring are being assessed penalties because they are following what has been written since the inception of the web?>

Very interesting discussion. Thanks.

Would you be kind to clearify what do you mean by:
...following what has been written since the inception of the web?

pageoneresults




msg:708056
 8:48 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I might have been a little broad with that statement. How about Since 1991...

HTML 2.0 Materials [w3.org]
Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 [ietf.org]
The global structure of an HTML document [w3.org]

[edited by: pageoneresults at 8:55 pm (utc) on May 10, 2005]

trimmer80




msg:708057
 8:54 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you feel that sites using semantic structuring are being assessed penalties because they are following what has been written since the inception of the web?>

Possibly.
Google has no obligation to follow correct standards. They care about the quality of their results. If there is a correlation between spammy pages and use of h1, h2, h3 then they are likely to penalize. I am not saying they do, but they would in a heartbeat if it improved quality.

Longhaired Genius




msg:708058
 8:57 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Too late...

pageoneresults




msg:708059
 9:01 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has no obligation to follow correct standards.

I might disagree with that statement. Why? After reading various papers on the technologies that Google is using, not following correct standards would go against the gist of those papers.

They care about the quality of their results. If there is a correlation between spammy pages and use of h1, h2, h3 then they are likely to penalize. I am not saying they do, but they would in a heartbeat if it improved quality.

There would be too many innocent sites caught in the net if they did this in any large scale automated fashion. No, I don't think the misuse of html markup is going to be a primary issue. There are other factors that would come into play. Just abusing <h> tags isn't going to get you penalized or at least I seriously don't think so. I could be wrong but my experience tells me otherwise.

trimmer80




msg:708060
 9:08 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

There would be too many innocent sites caught in the net if they did this in any large scale automated fashion.

Again I dont think that Google is too concerned with hurting innocent site, if for the greater good. Although in this circumstance I agree with you as many quality results would be affected.

reseller




msg:708061
 9:14 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

That's better. I prefer to go back to 1996. Is that ok with you :-)

Through history it has always been like this; experts do things in certain ways and get great results...until things change and great results are reversed to poor ones.

The mentality of the web has changed a lot since 1996. At that time most things were free and great results on the serps were much much easier to achieve. It was a kind of grass roots mentality "What we need is love".

Today the mentality on the web, especially that of SEs, is "What we need is to boost our business" "What we need is to earn more for our shareholders".

And if for example boosting Google business demands removal of "well structured sites" from top of the serps to encourage clicks on AdWords spots, then that what will be done. If business demand collecting historical data on the expense of publishers, then that what will be done etc... and who cares.

When it was mentioned for the first time that cigarettes manufactures were adding ammonium additives to tobacco to make smokers smoke more, nobody believe it. Today its an established fact.

In the same way, When some people say today that Google is penalizing sites with white hat SEO, you and the majority wouldn't believe it.

pageoneresults




msg:708062
 9:21 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Through history it has always been like this; experts do things in certain ways and get great results... until things change and great results are reversed to poor ones.

I've not yet experienced that yet so I cannot comment. I can tell you that I've had great results when converting older sites to a more semantically correct structure and this is in the year 2005, not 1996. We're talking html standards here, not SEO. If the search engines are going to penalize sites for following standards, then what has the web come to? Wouldn't that be like biting off your nose to spite your face? ;)

P.S. We all know that links are really the only thing needed in today's SEO. You could have the ugliest most error prone website with no semantics and rank number one for your chosen keyphrase if you've got the links to back it up. But then I'm going to come along and design a semantically correct website with just a few IBLs and take that number one spot. ;)

In the same way, When some people say today that Google is penalizing sites with white hat SEO, you and the majority wouldn't believe it.

What are sites with White Hat SEO? What exactly is that? Would following standards be considered White Hat SEO?

g1smd




msg:708063
 10:36 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

A document should consist of headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, and forms. Those are the main building blocks for a page.

Headings are short pieces of text that sit above, and introduce, a larger block of content below them.

Use the "Outline" function at [validator.w3.org...] to check your headings. If the results don't look like a short summary of your document then you are abusing the heading tags.

Headings are not there for stuffing keywords in, they are there to introduce the content immediately below the heading.

reseller




msg:708064
 10:39 pm on May 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults

<What are sites with White Hat SEO? What exactly is that? Would following standards be considered White Hat SEO?>

Early morning hours. However before hitting the bed here are few lines :-)

IMHO, a white hat SEO is an online librarian using techniques to insure that a website is classified correctly in search directories (SDs) and made available for search in both SDs and SEs under what is considered relevant key words/phrases to the content of the site. A white hat SEO work on a website also involve understanding and matching the factors which SEs & SDs use, at any given period of time, in ranking sites on their serps.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved