Forum Moderators: phranque
In a recent thread here, a couple of members bemoan the fact that only 11% of sites used a H1 tag, implying there's a lot of SEO left to do out there.
I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest neither of them would be likely to use <H1> tags without size modification through CSS.
Now I've often heard the argument that there's a logical reason for using <H1> tags, and their use is in fact "going by the book" etc,etc; but to my mind using CSS modified tags is strictly SEO spam.
If you don't modify the standard html tags you'll have exceptionaly ugly pages.
If you use an <h1> and make it invisible with CSS then that's spam.
If you use an <h1> and make it dark blue with a light blue background and a 3px border with a font size of 1.5em.... that's just sensible use of the tools provided for exactly that purpose
Hmmmmm.... SEO spam? I don't think!
Nick
You would prefer we clutter up our code with font tags, color tags, size tags, etc.?
And slow down all our page loads in the process?
It's called cloaking, the user sees one thing the search engine sees another, and we all know that's bad ;)
Well glengara, you're entitled to your opinion, but I happen to think that stuffing alt tags repetitiously with the main keyword is one of the least acceptable techniques used. And I won't call it "spamming" because it's being done by an anti-spam "white_hat" some of us are familiar with, and I'm most certainly not the type of person that likes to offend anyone.
If WebmasterWorld was one of those Bible_thumping boards out on the net that preaches clean SEO from a Bible it seems they themselves have written I could post the URL to demonstrate it, but snitching is against the rules here, so I can't.
>using CSS modified tags is strictly SEO spam.
Some would say that anything we do to make a page rank higher in the search engines is trying to manipulate the search engines, which by the search engines' definition is SEO spam. GoogleGuy calls it cheating.
So in reality, all of SEO that fits the definition by using techniques to influence rankings is spam. What we find palatable depends largely on what we ourselves consider within reason or over the line and choose to use. Some will say we're all spammers (you can find that in the site search), others deny that they spam and disagree with that. I'm one of those who chooses to be in denial.
I don't use <h1> I use <h2> and either Arial or Times font, which is naturally smaller than a Verdana font face. But that's because I don't always use CSS, and I'm not a spammer. Or am I?
and we all know that's bad
It's so bad I can't stop doing it!
:o
The six heading elements, <H1> through <H6>, [funny that they write "elements" and then name the tags ;)] denote section headings. Although the order and occurrence of headings is not constrained by the HTML DTD, documents should not skip levels (for example, from H1 to H3), as converting such documents to other representations is often problematic.
RFC 1866 - Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 [ftp.ics.uci.edu]
CSS1 is a simple style sheet mechanism that allows authors and readers to attach style (e.g. fonts, colors and spacing) to HTML documents.
Cascading Style Sheets, level 1 [w3.org]
From the aforementioned specs follows that if you have several first level section headings in your document you may and even should mark them as h1 elements. Adding style to those h1 elements does not change the logical structure of your html document, all it does is, well add style. Since style is just a visual component it is not relevant for the question of spam.
Then why shouldnīt I add some style to it to suggest how I would like the document to be displayed.
It's called cloaking, the user sees one thing the search engine sees another, and we all know that's bad.
No. The user sees a nicely styled document, the spider doesnīt care for nicely styled documents. When users start to use heading elements for text that is no heading then thatīs cloaking. But still, CSS is only used to hide that fact. What makes it cloaking is that the intended logical structure of html documents is perverted.
I don't use <h1> I use <h2> [...] and I'm not a spammer. Or am I?
Donīt know, but you do not follow the HTML spec which states that [a]lthough the order and occurrence of headings is not constrained by the HTML DTD, documents should not skip levels
It's called cloaking, the user sees one thing the search engine sees another, and we all know that's bad
Hogwash ;)
By that reasoning everything we do is spam. Including the use of <font> tags (which are rife in glengaras site), tables, css positioning etc.
Search engines see text. And html tags, some of which have more importance than others... You'd have to be a raving lunatic not to modify them.
Glengara
It's not 1996 anymore, times change, learn the technology, code by hand and give yourself a leg up. CSS isn't hard to learn and is the recommended way to present html.
Check out the Browsers forum, there are some great newbie threads there..
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it bad.
Nick
That is simply wrong, at least when the tag is used properly. When it is, BOTH the user and the search engine will see that "these words are the main heading on the page."
It's called cloaking, the user sees one thing the search engine sees another, and we all know that's bad
That is far from cloaking... not even in the same ballpark.
<font face="Verdana, Ariel, Helvetica, sans-serif"color="#FFFOOO">
It should be Arial, not Ariel.
Now just think, you could cloak that font declaration in your external style sheet. How many times do you need to change that on a page right now? If you were using css you'd only be changing a few declarations. While you are at it, might as well drop an H1 declaration in there too! ;)
Document structure is an important element in proper design.
Of course it rarely works out like that, I usually end up doing it bit by bit but, it's a nice ideal to start with ;)
Nick
Those of us who learned that way picked up some "knowledge" that sits in the back of our minds until we shine the light of day in there. Things like:
<br> means one line break, no gap
<p> means two line spaces, a one line gap
...or...
<blockquote> means an indented quote
...or...
<h1> means big type
Well, it just ain't true. It's just that early browsers gave us no choice but to think that way, and now it somehow feels like cheating to do anything that changes those early "rules" we absorbed.
Well, am I cheating when I change top/bottom margins on my <p> tags? Unindent my lists or take the fat left margins off my blockquotes?
Making an H tag look pretty on the page...it's the same thing to me. CSS means I can finally use the bleedin' things without making a kindergarden website.
Now I've often heard the argument that there's a logical reason for using <H1> tags, and their use is in fact "going by the book" etc,etc; but to my mind using CSS modified tags is strictly SEO spam.
hmmm... I don't believe optimization practices itself is what spam is, but the abuse of optimization practices is the defining line.
A page header (title) is just that a page header. The style sheet itself helps define your text providing you more control over how a browser views using font families, color, styles, spacing and size.
Ranking improves not just because of H1, H2 etc. use as prominent distinctions in text segments but also by the reduction of physical character bytes on the page and this is especially important in Google as file size is also believed to have a high weighing factor assigned to it. Anyway to reduce this file size can improve ranking.
An H tag removes the need for <br>, <p>, <b>, <i> and the <font> tags themselves plus the attributes <font color and size>. Considering all of these and every instance they are used that can be alot of extra code removed and file size reduction.
If however H1 is used to define say: 1000 words of body text, or using the style sheet color and size to hide extra text, IMO this is abuse of the tag, and should this tactic become prevalent I am quite certain that future algos for search engines will start blacklisting just as all the other abuse strategists with past tactics have found.
As expected, some trenchant defence, and some kicks on the shins ;-)
Not really - just common sense - If it's good enough for W3C it's ok in my book.
It'll be interesting to note any change in attitude if and when the Big G starts reading external CSS files.
At worst -- the weighing factor would decrease.
CSS2 get even better - how about that layering.
11% of sites use h1 tags
RE it being spam......how do you think google measures H1's anyway? Anyone know if it's averaged out from whole numbers each month or just a hard number in the algo?
If this 11% figure was transferred into the algo, it may not even matter if you use them or not...but if you do, then you have a better chance of Google seeing the h1 keywords being the main highlights of a page.
I say Google but maybe more....few SE's have 2.5bl...
I can't see their clever little algo using "h1 tags, more more more" as a logic, but as said, those who are "SEO's" are aware that they can be used to make-a-site-rank-higher.
Mentioning that h tags should be in a top-down order in documents and at the same time are aware of SEO are maybe hiding behind the curtain? :) Oh, they're just for style aren't they ..... ;)
So how exactly would the presence of H1 tags and their keywords be measured?
And a word of warning, if you have a correct answer you could be called a spammer ;)
I could change my tags to a1 a2, a3, a4 or just 1, 2, 3, 4,
Maybe preemptive and call my tags after my keywords.
This way I could not be associated with that disreputable bunch of spammers.
Your loss....
Nick
Using linked CSS is also ergonomically sound - ask anyone who's ever had RSI how fun it is to sit and type the same code over and over or copy and paste incessantly. If anyone has that kind of reactionary attitude and has employees they'd better shop for good workers compensation insurance.
>using CSS modified tags is strictly SEO spam.
If there's a blanket assumption being made with the accusation, then are we correct in assuming there are no intentions other than "seo spam" with no exceptions? Was that the intention of the W3C?
I think we've probably exhausted this one now. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Regards
Nick
I've got css in <head> tags all over the place for months and months on end. Just haven't had time to move out. This page loads fast as lightning, I'd like to get it down to 5 seconds or less.
H1 {
color : Navy;
font-family : Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size : 13px;
font-style : italic;
font-weight : 600;
margin-top: 2px;
margin-bottom: -15px;
}
>I think we've probably exhausted this one now.
I tend to agree, Nick. People can stay with HTML 3.2 pages loaded with font tags if they like, but when I'm trying to get a 200KB page down to manageable size, I'll take whatever help I can get so it'll load in less than 120 seconds.
I'm not sure if there is any valid HTML element that you won't find similarly paranoid statements about in this very forum. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that those statements are actually correct... ;)
Suddenly, external CSS files became very popular.
Does the term "bandwidth savings" ring a bell?
Btw: This is from the CSS file referenced by the Cascading Style Sheets, level 1 [w3.org] W3C Recommendation 17 Dec 1996, revised 11 Jan 1999:
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { text-align: left }
/* background should be transparent, but WebTV has a bug */
h1, h2, h3 { color: #005A9C; background: white }
h1 { font: 170% sans-serif }
h2 { font: 140% sans-serif }
h3 { font: 120% sans-serif }
h4 { font: bold 100% sans-serif }
h5 { font: italic 100% sans-serif }
h6 { font: small-caps 100% sans-serif }
Darn spammers! :o
Now I know why they (the W3C) have a PR10! Time to go and change all my style sheets. ;)
Now I got to shutdown to clear the coffee out of the keyword.
I'll never read a post from you again, with my mouth full!
You'll have to post some pictures somewhere to document this procedure! ;)
