[uf-dev] SEO and abbr

[Lee Jordan]

This is what I found in the google description:
"2008-04-2121st April - 2008-05-1211th May 2008"

Bit of confusion for me too as I had messed around with that page quite a
lot. It is actually an issue with working around abbr, not abbr itself.
Looking at it deeper for that page I may have changed abbr to spans
somewhere along the line before the google bot came along, to address
accessibility with abbr, the lack of whitespace would be my fault then
(schoolboy - hehe). In which case this should really be noted as a pitfall
of working around abbr with span classes and should be noted as a possible
downside to avoiding abbr?

I'd say that does seem the more likely situation as it makes sense all span
text gets indexed.
Still be interested in knowing how search engines handle abbr though, will
keep an eye on my abbr dates on the search engines as I have a few and will
keep watching my own cubs in the wild.

Lee


On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Brian Suda <brian.suda at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/5/14, Sarven Capadisli <csarven at gmail.com>:
> > Here is one example:
> >  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microformats+introduction
> >
> >  Look for "sarven". Shows description as:
> >  "24 Jan 2008 ... An introduction to microformats: what they are, why
> >  we need them and briefly how to use them."
> >
> >  It *appears* to be that this happens when the description is less then
> >  150 characters and they fill in the available space with the timestamp
> >  if and only if a new sentence doesn't fit.
>
> --- thanks for the links and analysis. I agree, the description is
> coming from the <meta> element and the date before that is either the
> publication or date crawled. This doesn't seem to be in any way
> connected to the <abbr> element that Lee Jordan is finding.
>
> Maybe we are all just slightly confused and talking about different
> things and/or Lee Jordan is connecting that displayed date with a date
> in the HTML, or he has actually finding an issue.
>
> Until we can find an example of this behaviour in the wild that is
> testable, (all other examples are counter to this) i do not believe
> this issue exists.
>
> thanks,
> -brian
>
> --
> brian suda
> http://suda.co.uk
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-dev mailing list
> microformats-dev at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-dev
>



-- 
HTML | CSS | Javascript
http://www.leejordan.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/attachments/20080516/cc957526/attachment.html