Nobody actually understands Google's algorithm (including the Google 
employees most of the time), so in cases like this, simply apply the 
"what is more likely" test.

Is it likely that Google favours this kind of borked markup? Probably not.

On the other hand, SEOs generally agree that em / strong tags have extra 
weight attached, but only for emphasizing certain phrases over others. 
ie if you use strong/em on all menu items, you aren't really emphasizing 
anything.

I would go back to whatever structure is logical and not worry too much 
about it - to me, this just takes emphasis away from your main body 
content and just makes your page more difficult to spider.

Harvey.



Stig Manning wrote:
> Hi NZPHPUG,
>
> As far as I understand there is no SEO benefit to having CSS-rollover 
> navigation full of heading-links,
> for example:
>
> <a href="somepage.html" id="btn-1"><h4>Somepage</h4></a>
> <a href="somepage2.html" id="btn-2"><h4>Somepage2</h4></a>
> <a href="somepage3.html><h4>Somepage3</h4></a>
> <a href="somepage4.html><h4>Somepage4</h4></a>
>
> The above example is not semantically correct, but does it improve SEO 
> by making the links more important?
> Before I go and make the suggestion to remove the h4s and replace them 
> with something that doesn't affect the weighting, I would like to 
> confirm that this is the case.
> This is how I would go about creating CSS-rollover navigation:
>
> <a href="somepage.html" id="somepage-button"><b>Somepage</b></a>
>
> As far as I see it, the above HTML is fine and doesn't mess with the 
> semantics of the page.
>
> Cheers,
> Stig
>
> >


-- 
Harvey Kane

Phone. +649 950 4133
Mobile. +6421 811 951
Email. [email protected]
Address. PO Box 286, Whangaparaoa, 0943, New Zealand

If you need to contact me urgently by email, please read my email policy 
www.ragepank.com/email/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to
[email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to