Following on from “SEO for Web Developers: Keywords and Links”, this next article in my SEO series focuses on page construction. Whilst I’ve previously stated that in-links (i.e. external incoming links) are the fundamental workhorse of good SEO, it is also important to make sure you are constructing your pages in a way that easily exposes your content, and that clearly links it to your identified keywords.
Further to that, it’s important to know what the search bots are looking for when they spider your pages. From URL structure through to semantic markup and page specific metadata, there are a multitude of features you can build-in from the start that will improve the search engines’ insight into your content.
Every two years, SEOmoz conduct a survey across various SEO experts which they use to publish statistical findings in relation to search engine rankings. This data is exceptionally useful in judging what elements to concentrate your efforts on during development.
In 2009 link metrics were worth a whopping 43% of value when calculating rankings. However, in the latest figures, that value has dropped to only 22%, which brings it in line with similar values for domain-level link authority (i.e. your domain is a “trusted” domain for quality). This reduction in size hasn’t resulted in other factors growing in value, but rather new factors have been introduced. These additions are domain-level keyword usage (how the keywords are relevant across the site), domain-level brand metrics (highlighting the importance of “brands” as a whole), and page-level traffic/query metrics.
Understanding how the search engine bots evaluate your pages and content is key to learning how page construction affects SEO.
I have previously written—in my article “Semantics and Structure“—of the importance of remembering that the web is simply a network of single pages. This network has only a vague understanding of the human concept of site; via the comprehension of URLs beneath a fixed domain—and even that doesn’t necessarily translate to a single site, despite being used for authority rankings. Large sections of search bot AI has been dedicated to discerning site structure from the links within your pages.
Whilst we can see from the metrics above that domain-level factors are now more prevalent in the calculations for ranking, it is still important to imagine each page of your site as an independent unit, and structure your content and code accordingly. This means that the page title should be situated in an
h1 tag and not the site title. That is unless you’re developing the home page, in which case the site title probably does belong in an
Site-wide architecture should be situated within non-pertinent markup (i.e. markup that doesn’t apply any semantic emphasis on the content) and placed accordingly in the source order. I’ve heard very peculiar things about content placed in paragraph tags being more pertinent than content that isn’t. In my experience this is a significant fallacy. For more information about “pertinent markup”, read the “On-page optimisation” section later in this article.
Search engines, for the most part, follow an algorithm of block-level analysis. This means they will break a page down into sections (e.g. masthead, navigation, footer, main content, secondary content etc.) as a signal towards ranking the content within.
It is a good idea to make sure that the content you want to rank for is situated within your main content area. This may sound obvious but in a brave new world of modular development, and pages made up of “modules” of content, it is surprisingly easy to confuse the search engines and suffer for it in the rankings.
It’s also important that you are prioritising your main content in your source order. Search engines will only evaluate the link text of the first use of a URI in a page. If you’re repeating a link with more valuable and relevant link text in your content than you are in your navigation, you’ll need to make sure the navigation comes after the main content. This is often the exact opposite of good UI design which will attempt to place navigation in the most obvious place; across the top, or down the left.
Take the following code as an example:
<ul> <li><a href="/about/">About me</a></li> <li><a href="/blog/">Blog</a></li> <li><a href="/contact/">Contact</a></li> </ul> <h1>My site</h1> <p>Welcome to my site. In here you can find <a href="/about/">information about me and my career</a> and <a href="/blog/">my personal blog about web development and the internet</a>.</p>
Here the navigation links will be the first things evaluated by the bots, but they’re probably not the most contextually relevant links to the content in question. In fact, the second set of links include good keywords and may add significant value. For this reason the better option would be this:
<h1>My site</h1> <p>Welcome to my site. In here you can find <a href="/about/">information about me and my career</a> and <a href="/blog/">my personal blog about web development and the internet</a>.</p> <ul> <li><a href="/about/">About me</a></li> <li><a href="/blog/">Blog</a></li> <li><a href="/contact/">Contact</a></li> </ul>
Obviously you can change the visual position of this content with CSS. Whilst the more sophisticated search bots will render CSS in an attempt to detect invisible content (i.e. that which is hidden either through
visibility rules, or that which is moved offscreen), they are less bothered about the reordering of content visually.
It may sound entirely obvious but it’s exceptionally important to write good textual content for search engines. You will always rank higher if you include a good balance of text and links—with a high relevancy to each other—on your pages.
Try to avoid duplication of content. By this I mean avoiding the same content on two different URIs. If your content is duplicated then you will be diluting its value by placing it in two places, even if it’s actually the same page served from two different URIs. I’ll cover the method you should use to declare the One True Version™ of your pages later on.
It’s also important to make sure your pages don’t duplicate content that is elsewhere on the internet. Good examples of this sort of repetition would be travel brochure text or product descriptions which are highly likely to be used on a multitude of affiliate sites; especially if that content is included in some sort of feed. Wherever possible try and create your own content; it will always serve you better and will ultimately separate you from the crowd.
Dynamic content is that which updates regularly and hardly ever stays the same from day to day. Good examples of this might be a list of blog posts on a blog index page (where the blog items update regularly), news item indexes, feeds from other sites (e.g. RSS, Twitter etc.), and regularly moderated lists of links.
Static content is that which hardly ever changes. Good examples might be “about me” text on your blog, the description on a product detail page, and the article text on a blog article page.
It is very important to find the right balance of both dynamic and static content on your pages. Some pages will suit more static content (e.g. the article page of a blog) whereas others will suit more dynamic content (e.g. the index of that blog). In either case, make sure you’re including some of both types of content. On the article include links to the top articles on the blog, or feeds from Delicious or Twitter; on the index page include some static “about this blog/author” text.
Since links are the most important part of your SEO strategy, it’s hardly surprising that the design of the URI is a fundamental ranking factor. It’s important that you use just as much care with the URI as you do with the text of those links. Here are the important factors in good SEO-friendly URI design:
If you can, try to get some keywords in your domain. Often the most successful domains will have one or more relevant keywords in their domain name, and the closer to the left the better. A good example of this might be something like travelsupermarket.com, which is currently number one in Google for “travel”.
Rather interestingly, _exact_ keyword match domains seem to perform marginally better than domains with _some_ keywords. By this I mean domains that are entirely formed of keywords in the order for which they are searched (e.g. cheapmajorcaholidays.com). Hyphenated exact match domains (e.g. cheap-majorca-holidays.com) seem to perform slightly worse than those without hyphens, and domains that contain all query terms but are not an exact match are marginally worse again.
Rather notably the .com TLD (top-level domain) appears to perform better than any other TLD. That’s not to say that you can’t easily out rank a .com domain, but they do seem to gain an advantage in a like-for-like ranking test with pretty much every other TLD I tried.
Subdomains do not count as part of the domain. Cross subdomain links, as previously stated, are deemed internal and URIs containing a keyword subdomain appear to rank similarly to URIs with the same keyword as the first path element. Example:
Ranks the same as:
Try to keep your URI path to a minimum. Each level you go down the hierarchy, the less value you give to keywords within it. This is another good reason to maintain a flat site architecture. Also, remember that the keywords on the left of each path segment (i.e. each section delimited with /) are the ones with the highest value at that level.
The maximum number of layers (or segments) you should use in a path is about 3. Any more than that and you’ve basically lost any SEO benefit from that section of the URI.
There are a limited subset of characters that are permissible in URI syntax. However, that subset still allows a great variation in the style of your characters. In general it is best to keep your URIs strictly lowercase so as to cut down on the chance of creating or generating duplicates through case sensitivity. Also, try and internationalise the character set in your URIs; it’s always going to be easier to match a UTF-8 search term against a UTF-8 keyword in your URI.
There are several characters that can be decoded as a space in URI syntax, but only two that will work successfully as part of your path: “%20”, and “-“. It is best to enforce the use of a hyphen as a word separator in your paths. Google understands this as a space, and it will ensure your URIs remain readable. Underscores (“_”) are not recognised as a word separator and are therefore of little use. Matt Cutts has previously discussed this in his “dashes vs. underscores” blog post.
Do not underestimate the value of human readability when designing your URIs. I have personally experienced, through extensive user research and user testing, that users afford a certain level of confidence to a readable URI. What’s more, some SEO consultants whom I have spoken with recommend applying slightly different rules to branch and leaf URIs.
A branch URI is a node that could potentially lead to more branch URIs or leaf URIs. The recommendation is that these URIs should end with a /.
Branches: http://sportsnews.com/football/ http://sportsnews.com/football/bundesliga/
A leaf URI is one that is the final node in the path tree. The recommendation is that these URIs should not end with a /, and should include some kind of filetype extension (usually
.html). I prefer leaving out the extension myself, since it feels a bit old school and almost enforces a file-type assumption on the resource in question, but I accept I may be clouded by a developer’s understanding of HTTP and REST.
Leaves: http://sportsnews.com/football/international/teams/england.html http://sportsnews.com/contact-us.html http://sportsnews.com/terms-and-conditions
These recommendations amount to a more traditional OS directory-style vision, which makes them more familiar to the general non-techie user. It’s worth remembering that the URI is displayed prominently in the SERPs and as such inform the users’ confidence in clicking the item.
Now you’ve hosted the pages on good SEO friendly URIs, and you’ve built a good network of links to those pages, it’s about time we looked at improving the way the search bots spider and evaluate your content:
The page title should sum up the content in as few words as possible. On left-to-right reading pages the left most words are deemed more significant (I’ve no research on right-to-left languages, but one would assume the opposite). A good title will have a healthy sprinkling of keywords whilst remaining human readable:
<title>SEO for Web Developers - Nefarious Designs</title>
Note that, in my titles, I’ve chosen to include the site title following the page title. Firstly, this means the site title will be included in the page title on the SERP, but it also means that the site title is associated as a keyword or keywords.
The majority of semantic markup won’t give you a significant boost in rankings. Sorry folks, it’s true; despite the fact that we web devs love some good semantic markup, the search bots are less bothered. Let’s face it, the internet is still full of badly constructed web pages and the bots have to spider, analyse, and rank those too.
However there are some semantic elements (and some presentational elements) that will have a greater influence on denoting keywords in your content to the search engines. These are:
h6: Well structured headings, that are relevant to your content (and not used as way-finders such as “navigation”) are highly important. The
h1 on your page is arguably the second most important element short of your page
title and should contain relevant keywords accordingly.
b: Emphasising textual content with these tags will infer the content has some degree of added value. However, it’s important not to saturate your content with this as it will inevitably be flagged as keyword spam. Overall my tests were inconclusive in quantifying the effect of emphasised keywords, but there is clearly value in it.
a: I’ve previously waxed lyrical on the importance of links within your content, and the textual content of those links is just as important. Linking to similar pages with text that involves your keywords, or is simply related, can significantly boost your pages’ performance in the SERPs.
As a side note, I’ve been told by so-called SEO “consultants” that all internal links should be fully qualified (i.e. be absolute links including the domain) to prevent scrapers from duplicating your content elsewhere on the internet. This is absolute nonsense. There’s really no reason that a scraper won’t be able to remove the domain from any links it identifies as internal to your site (i.e. on the same domain as the page it’s scraping).
There are plenty of articles misrepresenting the value of
meta elements in terms of SEO. For pretty much the last ten years, they have been mostly irrelevant for SEO. In fact, at the moment, this very site isn’t using them (more through laziness than intention—the site templates are old and I intend on migrating away from them sooner or later).
meta element is all but abandoned by todays’ search engines. You will see little effect in rankings if you remove it altogether. I have noticed some smaller search engines using it, and it’s conceivable that other search engines may use links from these search engines as authority on your content. In short, you might see a small amount of benefit by proxy, but possibly not enough to warrant making the effort to keep the keywords list up to date and matching your content.
meta element is used as the first port of call for the description of your page in the search engine. There is also a minor ranking effect from including keywords in this description but as ever, it’s important not to spam them here.
link element is a sneaky little devil. Most web developers use it solely for linking stylesheets to their pages, but it has so many other uses that can help the search engines understand your site architecture better.
link element allows you to specify another URI that is linked to your page, and also what relationship that URI has with the current one. To specify the relationship, you declare it in the
rel attribute. The
rel attribute has many possible values, but only a few that are relevant to SEO:
At a minimum it’s important to understand the canonical
link element. This allows you to declare the One True Version™ of any page on your site. This is probably easier to explain through example. Consider the following two URIs:
Assuming these are actually the same page, the search engine will consider these to be unique URIs and could penalise you for duplication of your content. To avoid this, it’s important to declare one version as the canonical version. To do this you add the following to the page:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://sportsnews.com/football/">
This method is also true of something more subtle like “topic” style pages. Imagine the following URIs:
By adding a canonical
link to the first item we can declare that, although the pages are exactly the same, the second is actually the same page on a slightly different URI.
There are a whole host of available options to use in the
rel attribute of the
link element that may improve the search engines’ understanding of your pages and site structure. I really can be bothered listing them all out here, but you can find an interesting explanation of SEO relevant
rel values here.
Modern search engine bots are incredibly complex programs. Considering the amount of information they gather on each pass of your pages, they should certainly be considered to be knowledge-based systems. As the web changes, so do the methods the bots adopt to navigate your pages in as close to a humanised way as possible.
To this end, both Googlebot and Bingbot are capable of understanding fairly complex navigation systems. What’s more, they are very good at evaluating navigation links within your pages to ascertain different routes to your content. Through this understanding they are able to apply value calculations to specific URIs.
Google announced at the end of 2009 that they were attempting to display site hierarchies as an alternative to the URL in the SERPs where they could surmise it from on-page breadcrumbs. For more information on this, see “New site hierarchies display in search” on the Googleblog.
To do this, Googlebot simply analyses any constructs that look like a breadcrumb within your pages. This can be either a list of links identified by “breadcrumb” as an ID or class, or a set of links separated by the “>” character. In my tests both of these methods have been successfully picked up by Googlebot and displayed as site hierarchies on the Google SERP.
There are other methods of marking up breadcrumbs using “rich snippets” which I will talk about later.
Googlebot has been designed to understand modern in-page navigation paradigms, such as tab, carousel, and accordion widgets. It does this by searching for the presence of known markup configurations and included scripts.
For this reason, it’s sometimes better to use commonly used scripts such as popular jQuery or jQuery UI widgets which are likely to have a large user base across the web. Sadly this often means that badly written front-end interaction scripts may perform better than more bespoke options.
It is worth noting, however, that in my tests rankings seemed better when pages used prebuilt widgets (i.e. those already in its knowledge base) than with bespoke techniques using predictable classes or IDs.
These days Google is capable of rendering a large number of “rich snippets”. These are generally pieces of code specifically designed for marking-up data of a particular type, e.g. microformats, microdata, and RDFa. Often these snippets simply involve a range of predictable element identifiers or tags.
When displaying search results, Google will try and handle these rich snippets in the best way it sees fit. For example, reviews will appear as a 5 star rating widget just below the title of the search item. Recipes, on the other hand, are awarded their very own search utility:
Currently, Google supports the following types of rich snippet:
For more information on implementing these snippets for your content, take a look at Google’s excellent rich snippet explanation page.
tags) for URLs and then spiders those, and other times it is finding URLs within external script files (i.e. that which is included using
). It also appears to find URLs manipulated into links on click events. However, it is definitely finding links in embedded script tags more regularly than those in external script files.
So far I haven’t managed to get Googlebot to spider content or links added during a DOMready or window.onload event. My tests are ongoing and I shall endeavour to document my findings on this blog once I have a clearer picture.
Apologies for the length of this article, it just kept growing! There was so much to cover that I really didn’t want to have to split it out into several sub-articles; especially considering the fact that it’s already part of a series.
Hopefully you’ve now got a head-start when it comes to building your pages for SEO. Tie this to the link building and keyword targeting you’ve been doing following my first article and you’ll be ranking well in the SERPs.
In the following article I’ll be looking at what you can do to help the search engine robots specifically by providing metadata for them, and how proper handling of HTTP can improve crawlability. I’ll also cover some basic tools that can aid your monitoring and improvement of SEO.