This Javascript Collapse/Expand Tutorial is a really neat way to organise supplemental text on your pages. I'm considering using it. From a navigational and user experience perspective it's ideal IMO. Collapse the stuff they don't necessarily require for their decision making process but enable the expanding feature for those hungry for more. So... It's great! But... What will the search engines think? As you see by viewing the source, the text is all there to see even when 'hidden' in the actual browser window. So even though it's not intended at all to mess with the rankings, Google et al. might think it's spam. What do you think they will do? Are they smart enough to separate spam attempt from usability efforts? The ratio I've been trying (not live and available to spiders) is about 2 parts visible and 1 part collapsed. Is anyone using these tricks to organise their content whilst not being punished? That actual tutorial ranks well and is cahced so it's clearly not a matter of Google finding <div style="display: none;" Code (markup): and banning it right away. Any ideas on what in such a scenario would be considered spam and what's save?
SEO best practices would suggest placing the code in include files. This is a hard question to answer. To be safe I aways break content into multiple pages. For intranet sites we do use panels a lot to increase the real estate for pages. Good luck
Place them in external files - Is just good practive... Whatever ANYONE says, CSS and JS is not currently being activly read by Google (I know this for a fact).
But it's database driven so external files would be a pain. It's so unfair this is even a risk (if it is).
I doubt it is... They do it all over the technorati site... Surely external would be an easier option anyway? It's better for code bloat at any rate...
But external files also need to be loaded there and then in the same browser call so why would it affect load/bloat? I really don't fancy external files due to it being database generated. It would defeat the whole purpose of having a DB driven CMS IMO. Just had a look at Technorati, never been there before. Their way of doing it is pretty nifty. That just loads content on the fly, must be a nightmare for indexing. I'd love to see a non-spam use of this that is indexed and ranked well.
CSS files (Not 100% sure about JS) are chached... You're kidding right? A CMS and a single style sheet are the ultimate way of seperating style from content...
includes only load once, for the first page load. They are not hard at all for dynamic sites. I know the common thought is to everything on the code page, but you will quickly see the benefits of keeping you content and format layers seperate. instead of have the style="add CSS here" for each item, you can set if per item in the CSS, so everything within, say a <TD> tag, is formated a certian way. Will actually cut down the size and loadtime of the page.
I've never had any problems with it. If the browser sees it, and the bot sees it, it's perfectly fine. If anyone complains about it to Google, it's obvious that the info is being managed (just as rollovers etc are) to enhance the end user experience. I use it myself to keep extraneous data accessible, but unobtrusive. Cheers, JL
I thought you meant separate the 'appearing' text into a separate file. My whole lay-out (besides this latest feature) is separated pretty much, I know the use and benefit of all that. Just thought you guys meant I should stick the 'hidden' text in a separate file and include that. So now it seems you didn't mean that, what did you mean? How is me shifting the css style from the page into the css sheet going to help with this hidden-penalized/hidden-not-penailzed situation? Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. Any chance of me seeing it please?
Visit the Reciprocal Links site in my sig, drill down in the directory to any category, and click on the book icon in the upper right. It will reveal Amazon book editorials and reviews (retrieved via the Amazon API by category/keyword). You can also see JS rollovers with small amounts of text by clicking on the 'latest additions' link in the menu on the left, then rollover the 'metrics' link on each listing. Help yourself to the JS etc if you want to use it (it's templated/dynamic) so it should be a handy fit for you. Cheers, JL
I don't know the answer, TOPS, but I'd find it hard to believe that Google's not smart enough to read something that commonplace.
I use this type of technique to simulate tabs without having to reload a page, doesn't seem to affect rankings. I'll PM you the URL
The thing is, anyone who's an honest webmaster but not au faix with SEO wouldn't even think about not using such a nice feature if it suits their site. But only because I know this... ...does it become a sticky situation. I'll check your site in a bit JL, cheers.
I suspect the problem is not reading/parsing CSS/JS, but simply that there are so many legitimate ways to use the features that would otherwise be abused that the overhead would be implausible. Kind of like hunting for fleshy tones in images to detect porn.. sounds great, after all, it's just patterns, but the sheer volume.. etc. At the end of the day, it comes down to humans. PS: Let's not forget the engines themselves use these techniques as well to enhance the user experience Cheers, JL
But the prime example of Javascript tricks for showing/hiding text is...GMAIL! And with Ajax catching on this is likely to become an even more commonly used technique. Another commercial example is the awesome interface at backpackit.com which is an online to-do list thing
Found something interesting via rickbender's link. Even though the text is readable in view source, Google hasn't indexed the parts collapsed! Which would be the ideal solution for all. Google doesn't honour the hidden text, we don't get booted, nor (do we or spammers get) the benefit of the hidden text. So based on his site, it all seems safe to do. For the sake of scientific research approach, I'll check with JL's site and maybe another few as well to see if this is consistently the case. If it is, we can stuff whatever in hidden text without any consequences (or benefits).