bold, italics, underline...does this still have impact on seo?

I read some article about this issue recently and if I remember correctly, crawlers understand <strong> as very important text, then <b> is less important, then italics and then goes normal text. It has some little effect on SEO but don't expect radical change...

 

"Nope. Doesn't mean a thing. If it did, then you could wrap some text around a SPAN and then use your stylesheet to make it bold and give it a really large font size to make it look like a heading. Like I already said, search engines don't care about your stylesheet as long as you're not doing anything stupid (read: malicious)."

Dan,

It seems most people are completely missing the point of this post, but I believe you understand. You said nope, it doesn't mean a thing. When you say that....what doesn't mean a thing? You said 2 things. 1. <strong> tag does have minimal weight but does add value for SEO. 2. SE's do not see style sheet.

This is conflicting. My point was, should I use <strong> on my links which will be bold anyways (normally done in style sheet) or should I just not do "font-weight" in style sheet and actually use the <strong> in the HTML for SEO purposes because the SE will actually see it, where it would not see it on my style sheet. I hope that clears up the reason for the post.

 

You mean its always good if I stuff more of strong, bold text in my pages than necessory?

 

Actually they (or at least Google) treat B and STRONG exactly the same, as they do with EM and I, respectively.

What I'm saying is that changing the display properties of your HTML won't inprove your search engine rankings. Turn off all images, JavaScript, and CSS in your browser, then look at what you see. That's exactly what a search engine will see (unless you're using tables for layout of course). Or use this to see how your page will look to the search engines:

http://www.webconfs.com/search-engine-spider-simulator.php

No, it's a bad thing to do. If people can't use your site, they won't come back to it, they won't link to it and you'll end up with no traffic - and a dead Web site. It's actually a common problem with Web sites - especially here on Digital Point.

 

"Turn off all images, JavaScript, and CSS in your browser, then look at what you see."


My point exactly. Crawler does not see css, therefore will not give you even a minimal boost in seo for using any bold/ital controlled by css. So it would be better to use the <strong> tag instead of font-weight:bold in CSS because the strong tag lies in the html and will be able to be seen by a spider.

 

There are times however when that will not be necessary or appropriate, such as when your client demands bold text for the menu items. In cases like that, using font-weight: bold; in your stylesheet will be far more appropriate than using the STRONG or B elements to do the job.

 

I checked the article again - according to it, logical formatting is considered to have more weight than physical formatting by Google. The most important text on website is TITLE, then H1, then go logical elements like STRONG or EM and physical elements (B,I) should have the least weight.

Where does Google say contrary?

 

You misunderstood me. I said that B has the same weight as STRONG, just like EM has the same weight as I. I didn't say that B and STRONG have more weight than EM and I or vice versa.

 

Dan,

I understand from a design standpoint, font-weight:bold would be more appropriate. But if you were strictly looking at SEO, wouldn't it be more beneficial to use the strong tag on those menu items? I understand it may be spammy, but....i do not think it would trigger any kind of filter at all so why would it not be a little better to use strong from an seo standpoint?

 

As Dan has been trying to state it doesn't matter which you use, they both render the same HTML results.

 

But we are talking about SEO. And font-weight:bold is invisible for search engines. On the other hand, STRONG is visible and more over it is used to give the text more importance. Crawlers take STRONG tags into consideration.

 

On a page I'm working on I have the font-weight:bold; in my stlyesheet (for style reasons). And recently added some <strong> tags on one or two keywords (for SEO). My question is will I still gain the seo benefits (if any) if I have the keywords bold in the stylesheet AND have the strong tags

 

It is being said that from an SEO point of view you may want to use
<strong> or <b> which ever it does not matter ONCE on a page to add some minimal value to a keyword..
or <em> / <i>
If you add font-weight:bold, the SE will not see this, so if you want to bolden text that you don't want to add weight to, as said Menu Items then bolden it via the stylesheet. However if you want to embolden a keyword then do it via a <strong> tag not via the stylesheet.

So StyleSheet font-weight:bold = No effect on SE or SEO
<strong> <b> may have an affect so use it for keywords once or twice max per page but it is minimal.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

You guys really need to sit down and listen. I said it's not just a matter of using the right tool for the job, but WHEN to use the right tool for the job. Do you really want <strong> or <b> tags to litter your menu, or the page copy? Which do you think your clients would want to show up in the SERPS? A menu, or the product or service they're trying to sell?

Sheesh.

 

Thanx for the great help..thats really cleared some of my questions roaming around in my mind from a long time.. approximately how many times should we use a bold or strong tag in one article page..for example if i am writing about top 10 xyz and displaying pictures of every one by one along with their numbered ranking with a little intro..approximately can i use one bold or strong tag with each one of them..thanks and waiting for your reply

 

bold, italics, underline tags are highlighting your main subjects or keywords in website content. online user easy to finding you.

 

its not have that much affect but making bold to keyword, we indicate search engine the highlighted information.