John Muller says: One of the problems with noscript is – as others have mention – that it’s been abus quite a bit by spammers, so search engines might treat it with some suspicion. So if this is really important content, then I wouldn’t rely on all search engines treating your noscript elements in the same way as normal, visible, static content on your pages. If this is “just” for comments, then that might be worth considering regardless, especially if the alternatives are much more complicat. This is a direct result of the fact that the noscript element was heavily overus and gives space for black hat seo and presenting different content in the tag and different content in JS. ” tag? . It is important to use the noscript tag where it is necessary and only there.
This is the worst thing we can
If for example, a specific slider does not carry a meaningful value for robots, there is no ne to implement the tag<noscript> and increase the complexity of the code. . Make sure that the noscript tag accurately reflects the content of the JavaScript content. If Google notices that the JS content and the HTML content are different, we may get a penalty for trying to mask the content. It is known that if something is visible only to Google robots, their hands itch to Iceland Mobile Number List add some content there, to saturate the content with key phrases, while not spoiling the UX of the website. Do, because as a result we can be punish with a manual filter.
HTML is best understood by Google
If possible, we always recommend HTML content. No matter how we swore reality, SEO does not like JS and rendering it will always be problematic. And is recommend. . Links plac in the tag<noscript> do not pass through the RankBrain algorithm, thus we can be consider spammers. Thus, let’s implement the links via the standard <a href. There are so few users who do not use JS that there is no point in displaying a message Bulk Lead encouraging to enable Java Script support.