I've been researching acceptable use of H1 tags, based on the thread (and comments I made) here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=436637 CSS image replacement techniques are now a dime-a-dozen, but I'm looking at something far simpler. A standard html website logo header looks something like this: <a href="homepage.html"><img src="image.jpg" alt="relevant text" border="0"></a> Code (markup): Right? You get a logo, which is a link to the home page. Stock. If images are turned off, you see the ALT text as a link. So. Suppose you do this instead: <h1><a href="homepage.html"><img src="image.jpg" alt="relevant text" border="0"></a><h1> Code (markup): The display is the same thing: a linked logo image. But with images off (as a spider would interpret it), you get a relevant text link to your home page with the importance of an H1 heading. At the very top of every single page of your site. It's spider-friendly. It doesn't rely on questionable CSS techniques. And it meets accessibility guidelines. This seems like a no-brainer. In fact, it seems too easy. Any opinions why would this not be a valid thing to do?
Not sure if it will do anything to help Seo. You can just have the image and alt and then make h1 tag it will do same thing.
I have been curious about this myself. I have had in many cases where the header text is actually an image file - and it seemed appropriate to wrap it up in a h1 tag. What is unclear is if the search engines consider this the same as plain text wrapped in a h1 tag. That i don't know Perhaps an easy way to see how Google interprets this is to view the cache of a page that has implemented this strategy. Do you have a link to a page where you are currently doing this?
Hi, as you know it's better to use a single <h1> tag on your pages. The problem with this method is that you'll have the same <h1> in every single page, and I don't think this is a good thing. I don't know too much about SEO (that's why I'm new here ) but I think it's better to put the same text in <h1> and <title> tags, and with this method you'll have to use <h2> for the title of the pages.
Best example I have is what prompted the original research : the W3C home page. Here is Google's text-only cache of that page: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...org/+w3c&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=uk&strip=1 I do note that the header image is not a link and the W3C is not using this same header throughout the site ...but it sure got me thinking.
AFAIK it is OK to use multiple H1 headings on a page, as long as it is structurally correct - you could legitimately use H1, H2, H1 in if fits the context of the page. Though I agree that for SEO purposes it is generally best to use a single H1 That is a big part of the question, really. I follow that logic, but I haven't seen a proper argument against it, so I wonder. It's true - unless we manage to properly do an H1,H2,H1 heirarchy as well. Hmmmmm.
Boom! Good work Chorizo. That's enough proof for me that wrapping images (with alt tags) in h1 tags is the same as wrapping text in an h1 tag. Very good news, i had been wondering about this for a while...just never took the time to investigate. I'll definitely be adding this to my bag of SEO tricks. As for having the same image and alt tags show up as the having the h1 for every page of your site is a bad idea. You shouldn't be using this method in that fashion that would be spammy and i dont think would provide any benefit. What you should be doing is using this method on pages where the actual header text is an image file. This happens pretty often - usually for design reasons. For example, look at this page: http://www.dcgolfetc.com/equipment.html There's a small image on the page that says EquipmentClubs. The keywords in the alt tags will carry more weight if i wrap them in an h1 tag. Which is great because if i cant wrap the image in an h1 tag - i don't have anything wrapped in an h1 tag.
I'm not sure I see how there would be much benefit to this. I think whether or not Google values the image text of an h1 tag is dependent on how they value the h1 tag itself. The question is whether or not an H1 link is more valuable than a standard link. Is there evidence of this? Personally, I would save the H1 tag to define what the current page is about and I believe that's what Google assumes it is for. What would you put as the "relevant text" in your example? Text that is relevant to the homepage or to the current page?
What about putting the site name (maximizing your brand's /site name exposure) *and* the title (relevant text) in the ALT text as Chorizo said <h1><a href="homepage.html"><img src="logo.jpg" alt="Site name - Page title" /></a><h1> Code (markup): and the title as <h2> in the content <h2>Title goes here</h2> Code (markup): Do you think it's too spammy?
A very good point... If we agree that H1 text is more important than straight text, and plain link text is more important than straight text, it follows that H1 link text is more important than plain link text. But I can't recall anything that says it really works that way.
I'm still trying to figure out how this would be beneficial. Semantically, the H1 tags are intended to describe the main content of a current page. Though it seems compliant by W3C standards, putting a link in an Hx tag basically says: "The most important thing about this page is a completely different page" Might have to run a few tests..... Anyway, here's some more discussion: http://www.webmasterworld.com/link_development/3421067.htm
I have the feeling that there isnt much benefit to using this method as a link. I cant think of a logical reason an h1 link would be more important than a regular link. However, what is most interesting about this insight is that you can use images to place header text within the page in instances where you may not have had an opportunity to use actual header text.
@ Sirrius: Thank you for that link; it's a fantastic discussion. Definitely getting bookmarked and I'll be watching it with interest. Also, point taken about the "completely different page..." @ BILZ: I agree that the link may not ultimately carry much/any additional weight, but the accessibility advantage is pretty clear, and it does look like a reasonable solution for properly indicating the relative importance of graphic text if needed. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why CSS-based image-replacement seems to be the preferred method when this seems to work just fine. @ Tripo: You are suggesting exactly what I'm considering. I'm stuck with a logo and slogan all in one image, and no real option to rebuild the site using proper CSS layouts. If the header image uses ALT text that matches the graphic text, and I wrap it with an H1, I'm not showing the spiders anything that the users don't see, and I'm essentially then optimizing for the brand name and slogan. I need to decide if that's really what I want to do, but it sure seems like a workable way to do it.