Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I have a section of one of my websites that utilizes frames (don't go their) and has, for more than eight years.
The top frame offers an A-to-Z (even more because some letters have multiple pages), while the body of the frame pulls pages from 86 pages (currently).
The 86 pages are obituaries (some are a paragrah or two, others are longer).
Each obituary begins the name with a <h2> utilized, while the text of the obituary is contained in separate paragraphs.
Recently on a search I happen to notice that on a google search the <h2>-name was not indexed, however some obscure text contained within the paragraphs and below the <h2> results in a soliatry SERP to that page.
This particular page has been online for nearly three years.
My question is to the ineffectiveness (or improper use) of the <h2> and the lack of indexing.
I'm wondering if perhaps changing all these <h2>'s to <h1>'s would result in indexing of the names?
Thanks in advance
I'm wondering if perhaps changing all these <h2>'s to <h1>'s would result in indexing of the names?
If the names are truly not indexed, I don't think that the h2 vs h1 issue is the cause, and this change won't fix the problem
Ideally, h1, h2, and h3 should be used like headings in an outline. There should only be one h1 heading on a page. They're so often misused, though, that I don't think that search engines page much attention to that misuse when they are used incorrectly. The engines probably just treat them as text.
For a start on how to think about h1, h2, and h3 organization, take a look at this thread...
H1 tags, H2 tags, H3 tags, etc
How do you use each type of "H" tag.
[webmasterworld.com...]
It would make sense for the obit subject's name to be an h1. That said, I don't think that's what your problem is.
First, your thread title said "not ranking," and your message said "not indexed" in bold. Which is it, and what's causing you to say "not indexed" so emphatically?
I happen to notice that on a google search the <h2>-name was not indexed, however some obscure text contained within the paragraphs and below the <h2> results in a soliatry SERP to that page.
I should ask at the start whether each obituary and heading is together on its own framed page.
Not knowing the answer to the above, I'm fishing for possibilities here, but here are several...
a) It's likely that you have no meta description for each framed page containing the person's name...
b) It may be that the h2 heading with the name is on a different framed page than the rest of your content.
c) It may be that the h2 heading with the name is on the same framed page as the rest of your content, but it's very far away from other references to the name.
My guess is that the issue is due to the way you have your framed content organized. It makes my head hurt to even think of the possibilities. Frames are probably at the root of it.
Are you by any chance here referring to the snippet that you see in the Google results page?
No.
Actual page content.
Ex:
<h2>John Jones</h2>
<p> Mary bought a purple candied cane</p>
"John Jones" NOT is google SERPS.
"Purple candied cane" IS in google SERPS.
I should ask at the start whether each obituary and heading is together on its own framed page.
No.
The 86 pages (previously mentioned) each contain multiple obituaries.
Each of these pages complies with google line limits of 500 lines and is under the 100k limit.
Each of the 86 pages contain the same meta tag description with the exception that roman numerals are added at the end of description which are the same as page number.
This is quite odd and I would not have even realzied the problem for a very unique search.
As an aside; I've bookmared using <a name> within the h2's and not sure that this should even pertain?
<snip>
Many thanks
Don
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:34 pm (utc) on Feb. 6, 2008]
[edit reason] removed specific searches [/edit]
If the name in the H2 head also occurs elsewhere on the page in the exact same form, I think you can eliminate the H2 or the name anchor as a factor.
I can only guess, though, your content is so buried (no pun intended) within your pages and within your frameset, with so much other text and no titles or links to provide Google with a clue to what the page is about, that Google only recognizes phrases that relate somehow to the "meaning" of your page, as indicated by the title or the overall theme of your site. Review some of your searches and see if that might not be the case.
If you want these people to be found by name, you're going to need an individual page for each, and then group those pages by category... and get rid of the frames.
I'd also try differentiating the meta descriptions among the pages, as that has been reported as being helpful when pages are otherwise very similar.
The important distinguishing, feature, though, is the title... supported by nav links to each page... which is why you need to break up your pages more and drop the frames, to give each entry more exposure. A change in Roman numeral at the end, IMO, is not sufficient to distinguish titles buried inside of framesets, especially not when you further merge all of your content together.
To provide an explantion to others and hopefully benefit others?
I've poked around a bit.
Four the past four years, this section of one my sites has been updated with newly archived obituaries using an annual date.
The very early frames and frame-bodies (i. e., this specific content) were created in 1999 and using Front Page and nested tables.
In early 2005 the nested tables were eliminated from subsequent additions to this framed category. (I've not used FP to create pages since 2001).
Google has not indexed the page contents in their entirety on any of page additions after the 2005 structural change.
The only solution that I percieve is a complete redsign of this section.
The problem w/o frames is that more than 2,000 obituaries are contained in these 86 pages. Perhaps pull downs are a solution, however I still need to keep the google page limits in mind.
I may also explore how other websites with extensive obituaries present their own pages with valid SERPS.
As an aside; and as far as the "buried" references"?
Perhaps it's a reference to frames and I'm misunderstanding, in that event, my apologies.
I have multiple sub-directories on another site that are three directories deeper in structure than this one and those individual page contents return fine is SERPS. (two folders deeper on this same site with pages that are without frames)
Additionally, I may explore some other SE's and see if perhaps the pages are handled differently in their results.
Thanks so much for your extensive effort to assist me, otherwise I may not have explored such extreme possibilites in the 2005 changes.
Don
[edited by: tedster at 12:24 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2008]
Additionally, I may explore some other SE's and see if perhaps the pages are handled differently in their results.
Just an update on this.
Most other SE's include the name of this particular inquiry in their SERPS.
Google doesn't and it's puzzling.
I've modified half-a-dozen pages and added them online.
Believe before I update the entire 86 pages that I'll wait for the outcome of these recent updates.
As an aside; and as far as the "buried" references"?
Perhaps it's a reference to frames and I'm misunderstanding, in that event, my apologies.
It's a reference to frames, and to having 2000 individual bios on 86 pages, with titles that can't possibly reference them, and with a poor linking structure that probably isn't distributing PageRank to your pages.
Google is returning content on your pages that's topically related to the overall "theme" of your site... but it's not returning searches for other untopical content. It's doing this, though, only on exact searches with quotes.
To examplify this... it's as if you had a site about car owners, but Google was unaware of who the owners were, and your content was just a blur to them. But it does pick up on the subject area of cars.
Your titles are so similar that there's nothing Google feels is worth of ferreting out of your pages... except... occasionally you've got some words that relate to cars in those titles.
And, if you search for an exactly quoted passage uniqe to your page that contains a word like "steering wheel" or "rear windshield" or "convertible," Google is apparently assuming that your car-related site might have something relevant to return on a car-related search, however obscure, and it appears to return that passage.
It isn't returning searches for non-car-related passages.
To me, this is something new that I haven't seen Google do before, but it's not unlike the way Google treats dupe content. If you have enough links to support you, Google will rank it. I've seen pages that have been scraped enough temporarilly fall out for a 10-word quoted passage while still ranking on a competitive three-word phrase that's supported by a title and inbound linking.
The difference now is that Google is doing this for very obscure quoted passages containing semantically-related words, as opposed to exact vocabulary in your inbound links or title.
How to unbury your content?...
2000 bios on 86 pages is roughly 23 bios per page. I'd move each bio to its own individual page, with a brief unique title reflecting the person's name and who that person is.
If you kept the same data organization that you have now, you'd then have to replace your 86 huge pages with 86 "bio-menu" pages for each set of bios.
You'd then have to create some sort of hierarchical structure for those, categorizing them, say, by decade or by year or whatever, and linked to from "bio-category" menu pages. In other words, create a hierarchical linking structure, with maybe 10 to 15 links from your home page to the "bio-category" pages... then link from those to the bio-menu pages. With the person names in the page titles, you might not rank well for John Jones, but you probably would do very well for Irwin Q Twerp. Right now, though, Google isn't even considering that content.
If you choose your menu categories well, those might be link-worthy and search-worthy by themselves. Flesh them out, of course, with descriptive content.
Google is returning content on your pages that's topically related to the overall "theme" of your site... but it's not returning searches for other untopical content. It's doing this, though, only on exact searches with quotes.
Robert,
There's simply no consistency in the results.
Your titles are so similar that there's nothing Google feels is worth of ferreting out of your pages... except... occasionally you've got some words that relate to cars in those titles.
There are sites and/or pages which are primarily obituaries and they have no problem in getting data indexed.
Until I locate one for methods of presentation and verify that their comeplete contents are indexed, it's rather a moog point.
2000 bios on 86 pages is roughly 23 bios per page. I'd move each bio to its own individual page, with a brief unique title reflecting the person's name and who that person is.
I'm simply not going to add 2,000 pages to this site to satisy google or any other solitary SE. (It's bad enough that google requires some specific meta tags for page omission)
If you kept the same data organization that you have now, you'd then have to replace your 86 huge pages with 86 "bio-menu" pages for each set of bios.
These pages have a lead menu of A-Z which has existed since 1999. Without any problems until the 2005 changes or perhaps it wasn't even related to my design changes?
Rather. . .Google's methods of interpretation?
In closing (and allowing you to move on); just because google doesn't associate a person with widgets, doesn't exclude that person's name from providing a vision of widget's to widget audiences.
There's are phrases and data presentation methods of phrases that have been in existence of these widgets for more than 100 years and yet google fails to comprehend the phrase as terminoligy!
Should widgets stop using this established practice for google's short coming? (rhetorical)
To restate, I've been unable to determine a pattern of consistency which would support you logic (although I have no reason to doubt your experience).
Many thanks again for your extensive help.
Don
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 4:06 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2008]
