Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

H1 Tag Questions


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 scorpioilya81

scorpioilya81

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 11:53 AM

Where it is now AFTER the h2 tag on the site, and instead of text it links to an IMG-SRC that has an alt attribute that is keyword rich. Are those two things going to adversely impact my rankings?

#2 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:47 PM

Probably not, but since rankings can be different at any given time and place, it will be hard for you to measure it.

I would watch your overall traffic for the keywords in question over the next few months just to make sure you don't substantially lose any of it.

#3 adibranch

adibranch

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 08:50 AM

where the H1 tag is poistioned (ie after or before the H2 tag) shouldnt make any difference ( it certainly doesnt in my findings) as site formatting can make it occur in different blocks of the code. You may have a h1 tag in a header for instance, yet the header code can appear below the copy code in certain layouts, particularly with floats or absolute positioning. Google shouldnt count negatively for this reason as its a standard formatting practice.

However, having an image in the h1 tag is utterly pointless. Its there for text. How can an image be a heading? it doesnt make sense and your web designer is plainly wrong. You do get instances of images being used in heading tags when associated with heading text, normally when there is an align setting in the image, but its just bad coding and theres no excuse for it. There certainly isnt any justfication to do it intentionally.

#4 piskie

piskie

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Location:Cornwall

Posted 08 August 2009 - 09:03 AM

IMO, the H1 should precede not just H2's but all text.
It is after all in a Structured Document, the heading for the entire page. I know there are those who will disagree with this, but I do and always will structure my H tags in a cascade as per W3C.

#5 adibranch

adibranch

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 09:13 AM

yeah its nice if it does, but it appears it doesnt need to for SEO reasons, as search engines dont seem to care about w3c.

#6 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE
However, having an image in the h1 tag is utterly pointless.


Don't those image replacement techniques do this? It's fine if you're trying to stylize your headings with interesting fonts that need to be in images.

#7 adibranch

adibranch

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 10 August 2009 - 11:48 AM

i cant think what you mean.. you mean font embedding? that still uses plain text but the font (images) is sent directly from within the website and then called via the style sheet, as opposed to from your local machine. Its kinda been dropped now anyway for current lack of browser support. It never really worked properly, and microsofts attempt to integrate it was appalling (weft).

Going back a bit, you also tend to see a lot of images in heading tags from the use of fckeditor etc, terrible coding but too useful to not use.

#8 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,244 posts

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:44 PM

I was thinking of things like the Farhner image replacement techniques.

#9 adibranch

adibranch

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:18 AM

ah i see... well in my wacked out world it doesnt make sense to me do this. The the methods described arent really W3C, they're just an idea someone came up with arent they? You're also using hidden text... To me this would be the same as hiding a load of text on top of any image with keywords in, just for search engines? How would they differentiate the two?

Personally, I dont like the idea much at all.. the idea of hiding text on top of an image is just nuts.. and using an image to describe what the txt would describe is a bit odd. Its text, so just use text ! That way, screen readers can read it and hey so can regular viewers. If you really want to do it, why not just use a background image (no text) and style the visibile text well to fit within it (its not difficult as we know, and some of my layouts do this to some degree anyway)

Utter bonkers.

#10 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:27 AM

adibranch, there is a cool php app which you can call passing it attributes on colour, size and also the TrueType Font file.

It then converts the text you pass it into an image using the attributes you set.

This is a cool tool for allowing you to use non-standard web safe fonts without the worry of them not being displayed correctly on everyones machine.

Though of course converting your text to images is not good in terms of SEO and spidering.

Also there is a big problem between SEO and Semantics, has what their coder done going to have a detrimental affect on rankings, possibly not, who knows it could even improve them (I'm not saying it will though).

However it doesn't stop what they have done, being completely non standards compliant, non semantic and quite frankly it's coding practices!

What would be nice is if the amount of considered 'web safe' fonts were increased, hey ho!

Also If I was coding it I would simply wrap the header tag text content in a span, use CSS to hide the span and its content and apply the image as a background.

That way your code is correct, semantic and SE friendly, but it gives you the design you require. OK some might call that stealth, I call it semanticaly correct coding practices, and if G! tried to claim anything else they'd be talking out their ass!

Because when it comes to standards compliant, semantic coding, design and content should be separated, so if the content is text and the image is used for design, then doing it my way is semantically correct! so mf_tongue.gif to G!

But that's just my dumb ass opinion, and not SEO fact!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

We are now a read-only forum.
 
No new posts or registrations allowed.