This is what it looks like when divs cry.
Just as well structured content adds to the user-experience for your site’s visitors, semantic markup, in my opinion, adds to your website’s user-experience for search engines.
No, it isn’t the end all be all of on-page SEO—not by a long shot—but if you’re like me and believe that well structured information architecture can help indexing and rankings by adding context to your content, then remember to cross your semantic t’s and dot your semantic i’s.
Semantic ailments to avoid
Divs are used to divide layouts into logical segments; when no semantically appropriate tags exist. Pre-HTML5 there were no <header> or <footer> tags, so, when using an HTML 4 or XHTML doctype, think IDs for these sections as well as for sidebars, main columns, and other logical sections of your layouts. Don’t lose opportunities for semantic goodness if they’re available.
In XHTML and pre-HTML5 (which, by far are still today’s most widely used versions of HTML) one of the most common semantic markup errors is the use of multiple H1′s on a single page. The H1 tag is used for the primary heading of a page (usually referred to as the page’s title or headline in the offline world), and is meant to be used only once, right before your main content.
A new dimension to HTML semantics is the fact that the HTML5 specification now recommends what was once a poor semantic choice in HTML 4.01: more than one H1. Multiple primary headings make sense with HTML5, since pages are more—and differently—segmented, but regarding H1′s pre-HTML5, “There can be only one“.
Missing heading levels:
If you have H4′s in your markup, you’d better be using H3′s. Don’t skip heading levels. If you need smaller font-sizes for your subheadings, open your style sheet and make the appropriate changes.
I like to think this one almost isn’t even worth mentioning over a decade into the 21st century. HTML tables for tabular data, i.e., spreadsheet type stuff?, yes; for page layout? Not so much.
CSS positioning isn’t as difficult as it seems at first—especially if you have an experienced, helping hand to get you through common browsers inconsistencies with 2 or 3 easy and elegant fixes.
A key point to remember regarding CSS positioning: 90% of your positioning can be taken care of with floats and margins alone. Littering your style sheets with an over-abundance of explicit positioning properties isn’t necessary for most layouts, and will only make your styles more difficult to understand later on.
Block elements within inline elements:
Often a source of confusion for those new to HTML is the difference between inline and block-level elements.
If you’re throwing a line-break, or <br>, into your content every few words, chances are you should be using HTML lists. If you’re using multiple br’s in a row, chances are you should be adding styles
But how does semantic markup affect SEO?
“The right words in the right places” alone isn’t enough to help your human visitors get the most from your content, and neither is it for ranking algorithms. I’m over-generalizing here to make a point.
While structure is a visual concept usable for humans, search engines get contextual cues from semantic meaning embedded within your headings, subheadings, definitions lists and all other semantically rich HTML elements.
Semantics, SEO, and the future
If you aren’t up to speed with manually coding your own HTML and CSS, you might want to jump in now. Why? With Schema.org, the controversial Semweb power-play made by the 3 search giants, the semantic Web is on the verge of becoming more of a reality than the ideology it’s been for the last decade+.
The semantic Web is the next level of semantics affecting search (as well as most other things Web) so don’t get left at the gait with your divs between your legs.
Mixing proverbs? Bad. Semantic HTML? Good.
My first reaction last week to schema.org was pure excitement. “Finally. the semantic Web is going to make a real difference in the world of search” I gushed.
I’ve been spicing up my markup with Microformats for years. Any chance I have to add more semantics to a webpage, I’ll take.
A couple of months ago—impatient with the wait for the semantic Web to hit search—I started playing around with SPARQL to query RDFa datasets from DBpedia. I’ve known for several years that the semantic Web is the future, and I’m beyond psyched that I can start incorporating more semantics–real semantics, on a macro level–into projects I work on. Woohoo!
I just have to forget about RDFa if I want the VIP treatment from Google,Bing and Yahoo.
What about my beloved DBpedia; the jewel of semantic data knowledge bases? How are they going to deal with this? According to Christian Bizer, DBpedia might begin publishing Microdata with it’s next release, mapping DBpedia’s ontology to Schema.org’s with OWL.
What about Wikipedia itself though. How do they feel about these changes? It certainly affects their vast implementation of structured data.
And why the proprietary format again?
Granted, the W3C moves slowly
Yes, we’re all aware of the W3C’s painfully… slow… process of going from drafts to recommendations and standards, but to be fair, certain browser vendors (do I need to name names) are even slower to adopt them. It’s difficult to observe the adoption of Web standards in wild if a huge chunk of the market doesn’t even implement the specifications.
Internet Explorer. Okay, there, I said it. Like I had to. How ironic is it that that they’re 1 of the W3C’s 324 members? Discuss amongst yourselves ;)
Stepping away from my enthusiasm for search 3.0—at least for a minute or two—because something deserves attention:
As great as it is that structured data will really get some recognition in the world of search, wouldn’t it have been a good idea in the spirit of the open Web to get some public opinion on what to include/not include in schema.org?
Why Google wants control of the semantic Web
My observation is that with Google’s attempted (and many failed) advances into the world of social media, now is a good time to have some control in the semantic web. The social space opens up a whole new application for semantic technologies. Their also-ran +1 button will probably benefit from a ubiquitous schema.org and help in their competition with Facebook.
The schema.org news is sudden, and though I’ll gladly play along with my new Web 3.0 toys, Im really hoping that Mr BYG (Bing, Yahoo & Google—you heard it here first folks ;) ) will listen to the dev community, and take public opinion seriously.
Remember Web 2.0—2 way conversations—before quickly moving on to Web 3.0
- Advertising (1)
- Bing (2)
- Business (4)
- Content Strategy (1)
- Copywriting (1)
- Domains (1)
- Google (14)
- Humour (2)
- Internet Marketing (2)
- Landing Page Optimization (1)
- Link Building (1)
- Misinformation (1)
- news (16)
- Online reputation management (1)
- Semantics (2)
- SEO Tips (2)
- SEO Tools (7)
- Social Media (7)
- Social News (1)
- Technology (2)
- Video (4)
- Web analytics (1)
- Web Usability (1)