All You Need to Know About SEO

Creating good logos should help with seo in other words
(thats very useful info" Im working in cs3 extension on jpg formating

 

Thanks a lot for the post! I have bookmarked this to read it again!! I have also rated this as Excellent!

 

For those who are following this thread, I'm going to make one last final attempt to get deathshadow to actually agree with me on this, especially since I'm the one that got him hooked on his way of thinking (regarding logos) in the first place. You know what they say - you make a mess, you better clean it up.

Logos, whether they're plain text or images, are content however, since they do have a defined role in the document - in this case, they identify what the site is (whether it's CNN, Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo, or Joe Sixpack's blog) to the user. This content does not change from page to page, or even from page section to page section - it's a global site element, just like the main menu and the footer. Some would consider logos to be metadata and thus deliver them as such (like Anne van Kesteren does in this example) via a stylesheet, while completely ignoring the fact that people need to see the logo (or it's alternate content) in order to know what Web site they're on to begin with (ah, so this is eBay). Besides, Web pages exist in isolation - there's no "site" concept in HTML (and this fact is reflected upon in the search engines as well given that they treat pages individually, rather than as a part of a collective whole, or site). It therefore makes sense that the H1 heading would be used to describe what the current page is about, not identify the entire site.

(Note to deathshadow: this part is mainly for the benefit of other readers, not you.) Now, before I go any further, I must clarify something. I'm referring to the actual contents of the IMG element (in this case the site logo) as the content, not the container itself. According to the HTML specification, the IMG element itself has no content (which should be obvious given that it is a container); it is instead "replaced" by the image specified in the SRC attribute, meaning that the actual image file itself is the content, not the IMG element. If the image cannot be displayed, then alternate content is instead sent to the user (the value of the alt="" attribute). In other words, this uses the same principle as the image substitution technique that deathshadow advocates, though in a different manner.

Just because a logo contains text doesn't mean it is text and therefore must not be treated as text. As I already said, logos are content, and should be served as such.

Actually, presentational images are used to provide the look and feel of a Web site, such as background images, rounded corners (yes, I know they can be done without images - at the cost of extra code, but that's beside the point), and so forth. Logos do not do this since they're content - they contribute contextual information to the document in question (in this case, a Web page). An element doens't have to be or contain text in order to be content - if that was the case, then we wouldn't even use the IMG element to provide graphical content to our users in the first place (such as images of products or locations) - we'd put them in our stylesheets instead. Heck, even P elements aren't content. They're containers for content, and headings are the same way - they're containers.

No, it's not. Headings denote the start of sections of a page, not entire Web sites. To quote the HTML 4.01 specification (which also covers XHTML 1.0 as well),

If a heading briefly describes (or identifies) the section of a topic it introduces, how can a H1 being used as the site title identify the topic of the section (in your scenario the whole page) which that particular page or section will be about, especially when you consider that a page is independent of all other pages on a site? Using an image element for the logo therefore makes sense, especially when the H1 heading can reinforce that relationship with the logo by stating "This page (whatever the purpose of the page is, such as "which is about blah blah blah" or "showcases products" or whatnot) is a part of this Web site."

Therefore the logo would identify the site to the user while the H1 heading would inform the user which part of the site he or she is on. Which is why I use it as the page title far more often than not. H2-H6 headings in turn would denote the start of sections of that respective page.

Take SitePoint for example. They use a H1 heading for their site title (even though they shouldn't) on every page. Does the H1 heading describe what comes after it? Does it say "This page is about the Search Engine Marketing Kit"? No. It just says "SitePoint". Now consider the fact that search engines assign a higher weight to headings than regular content. If you're using the H1 to identify the site rather than the page, you're wasting valuable real estate on something that you should have no trouble ranking for at all (your own site name). As I already said, pages exist in isolation; the concept of a "site" is a human one, which is why we link our various isolated pages together to form a collection of related pages under one banner, hence the term "Web site". You'd be far better off using that H1 to describe what will be following that heading on that particular page rather than repeating "I'm the Web site title" which frankly just looks stupid (and this is coming from someone who used to advocate this very practice).

Again, I must respectfully disagree. The text is often stylized in a manner that cannot be done with CSS due to the graphical nature of the effects applied to the text in the logos. Take CNN.com for example - unless everyone (and I don't just mean Microsoft Windows users here) has the (some may say illegal) CNN font then using the effects would be impractical, if not downright impossible - hence the use of an image to deliver that content to the user. Furthermore, if you HAVE to use a H1 heading to ensure your site's name ranks well in the search engines, well, let's be honest here - your site has much bigger problems that need to be addressed and abusing a H1 heading in this manner isn't going to help much, if any. Besides, if the image logo cannot be displayed to the user for whatever reason, that's what the alt="" attribute is for (which is an accessibility aid, not an SEO tool, in the first place). And aside from checking to make sure they're still on the same site, who really looks at logos from page to page anyway?

And that's fine, if you're using the heading as the specification states - to describe (or identify) that section of the current document. What you're advocating here is using a structural element for the sole purpose of providing a presentational effect, which can hinder the accessiibility and usabilitiy of a Web page (and is also technically a violation of Checkpoint 3.5, Guideline 3 [Priority 2] of the Web Content Accessibililty Guidelines - see this example of a conforming heading).

Now consider that some people use screen readers. When they first view your page, they're presented with a list of elements on the page. Lists, headings, and so on. They can choose to listen to them to determine where they want to go on that particular page. Those who are enlightened enough to use Opera as their primary browser (such as you and I) can similarly press the "S" key to jump to the next heading on the page, or "W" to go to the previous heading. I doubt very highly that having "SITE NAME" show up as the first heading would provide a user-friendy experience to the former group, and if I really wanted to go to the top of the page (where the H1 heading is in your example), I'd just press the "Home" key and be done with it.

In which case you're wasting bytes of code on something that an image element can do just as well if you're using a logo. Besides, if images aren't enabled for whatever reason, the user's not going to care if they can't see the logo if they know what it is and where they're at ("oh, I'm still at eBay" for instance). A section heading on the other hand... I have absolutely no problem with since it's just enhancing the user experience.

Agreed. Furthermore I'll add that if you feel a need to have more than one H1 heading because your page is covering two or more topics, you should split that page into separate pages (and then link them to each other via your menu).

No, it doesn't, as I've already stated above. The H1 heading describes what the current page is about it does not identify the Web site or where the Web site starts (of which there is no such thing since anyone can enter or leave from anywhere they please).

Assuming there isn't a containing DIV in between the IMG element and the BODY element, having the IMG be a direct descendant of the BODY element would be invalid markup since it has to be contained within a block level element anyway. And even if there's a containing DIV between it and the body, it's still a good idea to use a DIV around the element since it's not only a "division of the page" (header, menu, content, sidebar, footer) but also because it provides a CSS hook that can be used at the designer's discretion to apply background colors, images and other formatting/presentational styles, which you couldn't do with an IMG element by itself. I love my minimal markup as much as you do (hell, it's why I bought the domain name minimalmarkup.com when I saw it was available - along with the .net and .org TLDs of that name), but it's one of those few situations where I'll toss in an extra DIV if it means I won't have to dramatically alter the markup between redesigns, especially when the DIV can provide the semantic meaning that an IMG would otherwise lack.

Now, if none of that is going to at least make you consider changing your mind, then I guess we'll have no choice but to respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that. We've known each other for what, five, six years now? Why let an HTML element that the WHATWG would probably screw up with HTML 5 anyway if given half the chance get between us?

 

Thats a very transversed out burst here seo is really getting a new look thanks Dan for more seo wisdom

 

Uh, no. Logos don't help or hinder your site's SEO. They're just image files.

 

in seo when using word press to get the massage out to you're niche crowd how important is the theme of a wp blog"

 

I disagree - a logo is an image - an image being used as a presentational replacement FOR text. Again, that's presentation to me.

Which is why it should be the element you should only have one on in the page to begin with - the H1...

I think that hits where you and I are different - you are willing to style an H1 to appear just like your H2's... if you are styling them the same they are siblings as 'heading level' should dictate appearance. (I'm not saying appearance should dictate heading level - but, it doesn't make a lot of sense that the converse should be false)

A few weeks ago you said to compare it to a newspaper with the first heading on a page - which I said makes no sense... If you go to the inner pages of a paper what's the first heading on every page? The name of the paper with the page, section and date. If you want to include the name of the current page, it should be INSIDE the h1 WITH the site title.... MAYBE for the front page of the paper and the front page of each subsection... Which is another reason to throw extra tags inside the H1 so you can format all of that separately.

I think that's part of my issue with your reasoning - I NEVER have a header on my pages that should be higher priority than it's siblings EXCEPT the site title. I don't do the "welcome to our site" rubbish, and when I have a header in the content I usually have MULTIPLE headers that should all be the same priority.

If I WERE to do what you are saying, I'd probably end up tossing the H1 inside the main menu instead of using class="current" - as that's the only thing in my designs it would make any sense your way. You used an example via IM that would have made one of my H2's a h1 - which made no sense since it was a sibling to every other header on the page - the whole REASON I styled them the same. It is not more important NOR were any of the other headers on the page children of the first one.

Let's use this page (a WIP template) for example since the structure is similar:
http://battletech.hopto.org/site_designs/ccd/template.html

(note, the graphics have NOT been hung on it yet, that's just structure and layout with some CSS styling) Would you make recent news the h1? No, because "what is MSM" is NOT a child of the recent news section - and vice-versa... They are siblings on the page... AS are the two sidebar 'newest' sections, they are NOT children of 'recent news' or 'what is msm?' so they too are h2's.. You'd end up adding another header which frankly, would look like crap and not fit the layout. Since we NEED an h1 here, I use it for the logo... frankly, if I were to use your approach as I said above the only suitable spot for it would be... inside the menu.

Unless you are willing to consider them presentational - I do.

You mean like a logo?

You just contradicted yourself.

Only your first sentence quotes the specification - that entire section is misleading and putting words in the W3C's mouth.

NOWHERE does it say anything about an h1 marking the start of the current page - What it does mean is that by using it you ARE starting a section... The big 'flaw' I see in your reasoning is this:

I consider all pages on a site to be interconnected as one site, NOT as independant entities - that's why we call it a website, and not MULTIPLE websites that happen to all be on the same server. You need more glue to tie them together than just presentation and URL.

YES, it does. It says "This page is part of this website"... what's simpler than that? (good lord, did I just defend SitePoint on something?)

Which again is where you and I differ - I view them as multiple parts of a single entity - if they weren't why bother putting a logo and <title> on every page in the first place?

Though if the two words are different sizes, you have text in the h1 that's got major keywords you want indexed (multiple keywords indexed the same way on multiple pages usually ranks higher - the whole REASON you'll see me making the subtext on a H1 in STRONG or EM) - there's no reason not to get as close as you can. Too many sites look like crap with images off, when there's no good reason for it.

It's better than giving a H1 priority over what should be it's siblings so that content on a page of equal importance/priority gets devalued by comparison. Remember the big rule - STRUCTURE FIRST. Making something that SHOULDN'T be an H1 unless a bunch of other content is made H1's... doesn't make any sense.

Like say... the site it's on?

No, I'm advocating using the element for structure, then applying presentation TO IT. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Uhm, you realize that supports my arguement and shoots yours down, right? (notice the h1 == title)

Because not identifying the site is SO ACCESSABLE.

Too bad that leads to information starvation, the use of crappy little stripes, and the simple fact that most well written pages HAVE multiple subsections.

Nowhere in ANY of the specifications does it say that about a h1 - it just says it marks the start of a section. The topmost section of every page is the name of the site and/or it's logo - that is what ties pages together INTO a website. If you don't tie them together, it's like distributing a book without the binding.

Correct - I've just gotten in the habit of slapping a #container around all my layouts so I can apply a whole host of layout techniques without touching the HTML - like 100% height, fixed width (ick), semi-fluid (not so ick), layered backgrounds, faux columns, etc, etc. Regardless of the layout at least ONE of those will be applied.

I can see the reasoning behind that - but if I were to use an image tag I'd only add that other stuff when needed. NOT that I would ever use an image tag that way anymore.

One of the big rules I've implemented in my own code is that if you are going to have class="head" or class="heading" or even class="logo" - you are coding incorrectly. It's a header, use a heading tag - don't waste code on a class unless for some bizzare reason the structural heading would have a different appearance than others.... like the headline on the front page of a newspaper does NOT start a section wrapping every other article on the page, so it's H2 would get a class. (as would the h1 since the front page header for the paper is different from that used on the sub-pages - a technique I've been thinking on using)

That's where we're at - we've got two entirely different approaches to document structures that likely stems from the difference in clientelle and site design methods - much less backgrounds. (I worked in print... much to my shame)

You mean like they are ******* everything else up and making 100% sure we won't be able to deploy it for anything for at least a decade or more?

 

Nice seo top from death shadow! Thanks again

 

Ok I this site has some issues, but any suggestions for improvements? Still learning and willing to listen to anything and everything! eugenef.com

 

thx a lot. Rep added to your list

 

Thanks for sharing. It's really valuable!!!!

 

getting a site ranked by Google seems to have alot to do with the way it is optimized!
Im using many blogs that have well developed keywords to tarfet my search engine campaigns
thats really helping my social network by margins.

 

can you tell me if you would name this header h1 or the content in the header??? here at my fish oil site

www.thepurestfishoil.com

 

Uhm... None of the above because there is no obvious document structure - There is no form, structure or flow, the language used is jumbled mess of "speeking de engrish moist goodry", pretty much it feels like a bunch of semi-related content was slapped on the page any old way.

Much less that the entire HTML is a total /FAIL/ at intarweb both from a conventional coding point of view AND from a SEO point of view. Tables inside tables inside tables for something that even when USING tables might need one, maybe two tables tops - we're talking tables wrapping single elements, tables wrapping single columns... and then there's the inlined stylesheet, enough presentational markup to choke a horse, inline tags wrapping block level elements, character encoding stated twice, 203 validation errors, and a whopping 41.5k of markup for a page that by all indictations shouldn't even need half that... (13k of copy, maybe 3 content images, I'd ballpark that as a 16-18k page)

My advice on that - and I'm sure Dan would tell you the same thing - would be chuck the whole thing and start over by cutting the code down with clean minimalist semantic markup, with a formalized document flow - and get someone who understands english to rewrite your copy for you.

Oh, and when I say 'copy' above - that's a print term for 'text' - I'm basically referring to your page content.

 

Amazing writeup there.. Bookmarked
Rep added

 

Thats a very explosive regard deathshadow I guess my SEO was "more messy o" I got the impression and yeah I did slap it together reason Im learning in retro Im a self starter" their has to be a format to follow when it come to a well structured table and frame set with in a website" if you have any direct leads to show me the best place to learn design lease drop a pm and thanks again Deathshadow and Dan" for search engine evaluation quote.

 

Good post Dan. It was a good read while sipping my afternoon coffee.

 

Nice post guys, good to read an informative and yet hot debate without it becoming personal!

 

How do you make the search engines read left and right sidebar after the page content in Wordpress??

In HTML, if you add an extra row on the left sidebar at the top, the search engines will skip the left sidebar and go straight to the content but I'm not sure how to do this in wordpress.

In some WP templates with left sidebar only, they have the <?php sidebar.php ?> line after the content but if the template has both left and right sidebars, then the left sidebar will be place before the content and this can change the optimization efforts because the search engines will read all the left sidebar words and phrases then go to the content.

Anybody knows how to put the left sidebar before the content??

 

Man thats up to the WP theme you are using