Bold or Strong Tag - Which is Better

Hi

Which is better <b> tag or <Strong> tag. And which is helpful in SEO?

Thanks in advance

 

Both valid. Neither would make any difference to your search engine ranking.

 

Neither is good - use CSS. It's 2013, not 2003.

 

Thanks for the reply, but I really want to importance of <b> tag and <strong> tag. At this time not looking for discussion on CSS.

 

Google treats the bold and strong tag with the same weight.

 

<strong> is better than <b> tag. Because if it is possible to get richer effect with CSS.

 

The same as the importance of buttonhooks and buggy whips - they're not used any more, except by people who are stuck in the distant past.

That's like saying that you want to write a book but you're not looking for a discussion on writing. It's 2013, not 1993.

@sadamsam:
Neither one is CSS.

 

Their is no difference between them google read both as same.[TABLE="width: 190"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 190"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

All modern browsers will render either of them exactly the same.

 

Both are same. Not to worry about from SEO point of view.

 

both are equal and do not have any difference

 

as far as the search engine is concerned it doesn't make any difference by using strong or bold yes but the heading tags (h1,h2... h6) matters as the search engine read them as headings and important part of content.

 

Both are valid for as per SEO use STRONG.

 

*** BACKHAND *** -- Really, I expect better from you than THAT!!!

CSS does not supplant B or STRONG's semantic meaning. Admittedly, people get confused on how B or I can have a 'semantic meaning' and cannot think of them as anything but presentational -- and you have the whackjobs who think they're deprecated in favor of EM and STRONG (they aren't)... but to say not to use them and instead... do what? Throw semantics out the window and use a classed span instead? (There are SO many things wrong with that -- where to begin).

I and B do mean Italic and Bold -- after a fashion -- when writing markup semantically they are used to indicate when text would be bold or italic for grammatical purposes on a normal printed document... for things like book titles, product names, company names, etc, etc... (you guys did learn that in elementary school, right?) This is simpler than having a billion tags nobody can keep track of or the noodle-doodle idea you get some nutters out there proposing of letting everyone just make up their own tags. As such, they do not MEAN bold and italic, and you can show them however you like so long as the meaning (this text is different) is conveyed. It's one of those little philosophical differences that really screw up some folks -- much akin to the difference between an empty tag and a tag that's empty; in the specification those are two entirely separate things... the difference between 'would' and 'could'... or to again bring up elementary school, I dunno, CAN you go to the bathroom?!?

EM and STRONG mean emphasized and 'with more emphasis' respectively. They are used to emphasize -- add weight/meaning to a section of text. They do not mean bold and italic -- that's where most people screw up their HTML badly pissing away anything resembling accessibility -- as it seems some folks just cannot get the concept that the tags meaning does NOT equal it's default appearance -- H2 doesn't mean bold bigger text, H1 doesn't mean bolder bigger text than a H2, UL doesn't mean a list with bullets, P doesn't mean 'make a space here', etc, etc...

There's an example a friend used on another forums quite some time ago that shows all four of them in action used properly -- I drag it out at least twice a year when this topic comes up.

<i>GURPS</i>, <b>Steve Jackson Games'</b> flagship roleplaying game, was first released in 1985. Several licensed adaptations of other companies' games exist for the system, such as <i>GURPS Bunnies and Burrows</i>. However, <b>SJ Games</b> has no connection with <b>Wizards of the Coast</b>, producers of the <i>Dungeons and Dragons</i> RPG. <em>No <i>GURPS,</i> content is open-source.</em> <strong>Do not plagiarize <b>SJ Games</b> work!</strong>

... and yes, I inside EM and B inside STRONG would be syntactically correct... because they do not mean the same thing. (another reason CSS is nice, you can use other appearances besides the default to convey the meaning)

Also, to be brutally frank -- <em>when am I anything but</em> -- if you are using <code>EM</code>, <code>STRONG</code>, <code>B</code>, <code>I</code> or any other tag JUST for SEO weight instead of using them properly for semantics, syntax and/or grammatical structure, <strong>you are choosing the wrong tags for ALL the wrong reasons!!!</strong>

Of course with most people thinking visual layout before they even have semantic markup of their content without pulling one's head out of 1997's arse, failing to grasp even the simplest of concepts core to what HTML is even for -- it seems a great number of people are just sleazing out websites any old way without grasping semantics, why it's important, or all the advantages that come from techniques like semantic markup, separation of presentation from content, and progressive enhancement.

 

No importance. SpeedaEcommerce already gave you an answer to that. The importance is in the writing/content. Think about your readers and not search engines, then you won't end up over-optimising.

 

I think they are one and the same thing. Though I have heard that strong tag is going to be redundant in the coming days. So use bold safely.

 

I didn't find any difference between those.
Actually seo is not depending on that.