Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: open
A while back I did some very interesting research of my own in terms of Google. I didn't really compare page to page but rather focused on how one could get the most attractive entry in the Google searches that showed up.
After all if the link description in Google does not catch the eye of visitors it will produce far less visits.
In other words I evaluated how Google made up each search entry. Where it got the title of the link, where it got the description, etc..
Anyway one thing that seemed evident is that Google takes items found in the link description of a given site from those elements on a page that are displayable on a first come, first served basis. Within the source code.
So in other words if a page synopsis was the first displayable text in the source code, Google would include some words from the synopsis.
I have figured out a way to use CSS positioning to place all displayable items that I DON'T want Google to use first, at the bottom of my source. These items will still appear at the top of the page but in the source they are found at the very bottom. Where Google is unlikely to use them.
So for example I can have a page synopsis that Google won't pay attention to. Or some navigation links at the top of the page content. Etc..
Does anyone have any comments that would corroborate what I think I have discovered about where Google gets it's link and description text from? (i.e. from the displayable content of the page in the source code. Generally on a first come, first served basis.)
And does anyone have any comments about using CSS positioning to do what I am doing either pro or con? In terms of the effect on a site's Google search page descriptio?
I would be very interested to hear what anyone might have to say.
That sounds about right for the snippet.
If the content is marked up in a logical manner that reads nicely in a non-CSS context, and the CSS positioning results in a page that reads nicely in a CSS context, then I wouldn't see a problem.
But don't take my word for it...