In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this Help Center article: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal from our index.
Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have some work to do.
In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As you can see, no hidden text.
But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see before: "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way ticket out of Google's index.
When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on particular aspects this topic.
This is a great post and will certainly serve for a reference for a lot of newbies for years to come! Kind of justification too since I once got 'flamed' by some users for having 'hidden' text based on having a display:none for an advanced search form which was/is visible when clicking on an 'advanced search form' link :) It's one of my main pet peeves with people that simply use a free tool that is online to do a check without actually placing their findings in context by having a look at the site. But that's off topic, so just wanted to say thanks.
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
Thanks Wysz for taking the effort to write such an informative post.
I guess inevitably people are going to ask the question 'but - how does google KNOW that I'm using display:none in a non malicous way - so why should I take the risk when I can't be sure whether I've been pinged for it?' :D
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
Wysz, thank you very much for this post. It's extremely helpful and the addition of a real world example brings the point home for everyone to understand. I also appreciate your request for further questions if need be. It's a question that's been asked hundreds of times here before, and for the hundreds of times it's asked again in the future people can point in the right direction. Thanks again!
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
I suppose you are referring to what I might have said as having "flamed" you. Yes, it could well have been me complaining about such a menu.
Go back again to google.com. Click more - you get a drop down menu which was previously hidden from view. Now turn off javascript. Click that More button - yep you go to a page with other links. So whether you have javascript disabled or enabled you can still navigate it OK.
Now go check your own page (which I don't recall now). If you have a css menu with css hidden section, will you be able to navigate further with javascript off or does your css hidden menu depend on javascript to unhide it?
> This is a great post and will certainly serve for a reference for a > lot of newbies for years to come! Kind of justification too since I > once got 'flamed' by some users for having 'hidden' text based on > having a display:none for an advanced search form which was/is visible > when clicking on an 'advanced search form' link :) It's one of my main > pet peeves with people that simply use a free tool that is online to > do a check without actually placing their findings in context by > having a look at the site. But that's off topic, so just wanted to say > thanks.
> On Oct 5, 11:40 pm, Wysz wrote:
> > In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> > As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > > from our index.
> > Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > > some work to do.
> > In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> > Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> > Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > > you can see, no hidden text.
> > But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > > before: > > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> > You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > > ticket out of Google's index.
> > When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> > In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > > particular aspects this topic.
> Now go check your own page (which I don't recall now). If you have a > css menu with css hidden section, will you be able to navigate further > with javascript off or does your css hidden menu depend on javascript to unhide it?
No, it didn't depend on JS in any way .. It was a simple CSS image replacement, with clearly no other intention than to be able to use a nicer font for the navigation. That said, we've since removed it out of paranoia. And it doesn't hurt bandwidth to use a plain text menu anyway. The current implementation can be seen on http://www.travellerspoint.com . I think you'll agree it is about as safe as can be.. and yet we still find ourselves ranking in last spot where we once were king. The other place it was used was as an "advanced search area" as part of a search form.. and all it hid there was a select box with a list of countries to help narrow down results. Perhaps that was suspicious? We removed it from the front page as well, though it can still be seen on some of our deeper search forms like this one: http://www.travellerspoint.com/search.cfm?area=users . Perhaps that is enough reason to penalize a site with hundreds of thousands of useful & unique pages?
Back to the original response.. The answer is great (it's ALWAYS good to get official comments), but for me doesn't really help the situation at all. I'm left wondering after this comment:
> If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have some work to do.
How can Google really assure us that googlebot is intelligent enough to tell the difference?
Without giving us some sort of reassurance on how you *fairly* come to the decision that sites are "trying to manipulate" you, I'm afraid serious webmasters are still left with little choice but to play it safe and not ever use display:none.
> I suppose you are referring to what I might have said as having > "flamed" you. Yes, it could well have been me complaining about such a > menu.
> Go back again to google.com. Click more - you get a drop down menu > which was previously hidden from view. Now turn off javascript. Click > that More button - yep you go to a page with other links. So whether > you have javascript disabled or enabled you can still navigate it OK.
> Now go check your own page (which I don't recall now). If you have a > css menu with css hidden section, will you be able to navigate further > with javascript off or does your css hidden menu depend on javascript > to unhide it?
> That is the whole bone of contention IMO.
> On Oct 5, 5:57 pm, Sam I Am wrote:
> > This is a great post and will certainly serve for a reference for a > > lot of newbies for years to come! Kind of justification too since I > > once got 'flamed' by some users for having 'hidden' text based on > > having a display:none for an advanced search form which was/is visible > > when clicking on an 'advanced search form' link :) It's one of my main > > pet peeves with people that simply use a free tool that is online to > > do a check without actually placing their findings in context by > > having a look at the site. But that's off topic, so just wanted to say > > thanks.
> > On Oct 5, 11:40 pm, Wysz wrote:
> > > In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > > > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > > > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > > > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > > > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> > > As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > > > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > > > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > > > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > > > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > > > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > > > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > > > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > > > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > > > from our index.
> > > Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > > > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > > > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > > > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > > > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > > > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > > > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > > > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > > > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > > > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > > > some work to do.
> > > Let's try this approach with a page you may have seen before:http://www.google.com/
> > > In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > > > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> > > Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> > > Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > > > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > > > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > > > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > > > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > > > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > > > you can see, no hidden text.
> > > But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > > > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > > > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > > > before: > > > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > > > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> > > You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > > > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > > > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > > > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > > > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > > > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > > > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > > > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > > > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > > > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > > > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > > > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > > > ticket out of Google's index.
> > > When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > > > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > > > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > > > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > > > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > > > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > > > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> > > In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > > > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > > > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > > > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > > > particular aspects this topic.
Sam I AM - I'm with you 1,000%! The right tool in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing indeed!
dockarl - Right, as always, and it didn't take long for you to be proved right! :-()
JLH - It's GREAT to see you back! While most questions asked since you said, "bye" would have been a waste of your time, as a simple read of the FAQs would have been sufficient, there have been a small few that could have used the understanding you bring to this group that I have not seen from anyone else!
Webado - Good point! If CSS turns it "off" but Javascript is required to turn it "on", that could be a problem although it might not be if the intent is clear and what is turned off is not spammy. In any event though, this was not the case in Sam I Am and daamsie's site.
It still makes me wish thought that more people thought about the effects of the techniques they use across all possible browser conditions. I think the bigger problem though is all the "plug-n-pray" javascript menus and libraries and such that end up being usage hostile but that people use over and over and over again. The very fact that they need to use a library or canned code in the first place means they likely don't have the ability to judge its effects on their pages. :-(
daamsie - Thanks for proving dockarl right. :-() I can understand your desire for reassurance but what would reassure you? If a Googler saying something is so isn't enough, what more could be said or done to satisfy?
That asked, I understand your's and Sam I Am's problem. You have a huge site that seems to be "penalized", you have already done a ton of things trying to get it back to where it was but so far, nothing seems to be working.
Does that mean that what you have done so far has NOT been the problem, in which case you should be able to safely undo everything and try other things or does it mean that maybe some of what you have done was needed but that you just haven't found that last thing that is holding your site back?
Back to your question though, "How can Google really assure us that googlebot is intelligent enough to tell the difference?"
The problem is, only you can answer that because only you know what assurance you need.
For me personally, my "assurance" is that Google can not only see every site on the Internet but more so, analyze it all as one piece, so to speak. With all that data available, you almost don't have to look for patterns, they virtually pop out and slap you in the face.
Also, it is not all that hard to infer intent even without Google's vast storage and processing capabilities. How hard is it to look at something, something hidden for example, and figure out why it is hidden? If you see something hidden, like a header or a menu item or whatever and it looks spammy as hell, that is not so hard to discern. But, if what is hidden fits in with the rest of the page, and possibly the rest of the site, it is a natural element within the architecture of the site and the intent for hiding whatever it is wouldn't be malicious as there would be no benefit in doing so.
I do understand though, in the situation you are in, you essentially have to second and third guess everything because so far, nothing you have heard has gotten your site back to where it was previously. I wish there was a "magic bullet" I could suggest but I've run out of ideas.
But at the same time, there comes a point where you have to decide what can and can't be where problems may be because otherwise, you end up with a blank page with nothing on it which would then itself become a reason for a site not doing too terribly well either.
Your and Sam I Am's situation is one of the VERY few situations where I wish Google would give a direct answer as to why a site has tanked. Both of you have tried EVERYTHING suggested, no matter how much you or anyone else disagreed but nothing has gotten you anywhere.
I'm right with you on the handiness of this thread. With the amount of questions about hidden taxt coming through this place, it makes for an extremely handy bookmark to refer people to; straight to the horse's mouth so to speak.
> Wysz, thank you very much for this post. It's extremely helpful and > the addition of a real world example brings the point home for > everyone to understand. I also appreciate your request for further > questions if need be. It's a question that's been asked hundreds of > times here before, and for the hundreds of times it's asked again in > the future people can point in the right direction. Thanks again!
> On Oct 5, 4:40 pm, Wysz wrote:
> > In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> > As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > > from our index.
> > Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > > some work to do.
> > In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> > Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> > Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > > you can see, no hidden text.
> > But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > > before: > > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> > You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > > ticket out of Google's index.
> > When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> > In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > > particular aspects this topic.
Thanks Wysz! Can we please have this thread (as well as Susan's missing home page post) linked in the FAQs?
The example reminds me of a fight I had in 2005 or so when I used Google pages as example for legit / search engine friendly cloaking ... I lost a client back then but still cloak away. ;)
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
Craig, thanks for that answer and as you know both Sam and I appreciate everyone's input here.. no matter how much we might disagree with the logic sometimes (as in the hidden text suggestions early on..)
You are right I suppose that I should accept the comment as some assurance. The issue is that they speak in terms of "intent". Well, intent is only measurable by the person who performs an action. Even what may seem to be clear spam may have been a simple mistake by an uneducated site owner. I've seen people who have believed it to be good/normal practice to post a list of keywords at the bottom of the page - the justification being that this is the logical way to tell Google what a page is about. So the intent there is not necessarily wrong, but the execution certainly is quite spammy.
So when Google's answer boils down to nothing more than "if you intended well, then you're OK", I take very little joy from that. Google penalizes sites WITHOUT consulting webmasters about their intent, so how can they pretend to detect what we intended? If they aren't even willing to talk to us, how can they read our minds?
In answer to what assurances would actually make me happy; I guess some clear indication of what coding techniques are actually likely to cause an automated flag for spam? And some understanding of how Google deals with such a flag? Do they simply penalize a site and then automatically review it again a few months later? Or do they send in a human to review before dooming the site to hell?
All we have learnt from this post is 1 example where hidden text is acceptable and where Google managed to correctly detect intent. But really, it's unsurprising that Google can detect their own intent!
One thing has been made clear. Hidden text *can* be OK.
How can we ensure Google doesn't misunderstand our intentions? We still have no idea.
> Sam I AM - I'm with you 1,000%! The right tool in the wrong hands is > a dangerous thing indeed!
> dockarl - Right, as always, and it didn't take long for you to be > proved right! :-()
> JLH - It's GREAT to see you back! While most questions asked since > you said, "bye" would have been a waste of your time, as a simple read > of the FAQs would have been sufficient, there have been a small few > that could have used the understanding you bring to this group that I > have not seen from anyone else!
> Webado - Good point! If CSS turns it "off" but Javascript is required > to turn it "on", that could be a problem although it might not be if > the intent is clear and what is turned off is not spammy. In any > event though, this was not the case in Sam I Am and daamsie's site.
> It still makes me wish thought that more people thought about the > effects of the techniques they use across all possible browser > conditions. I think the bigger problem though is all the "plug-n-pray" > javascript menus and libraries and such that end up being usage > hostile but that people use over and over and over again. The very > fact that they need to use a library or canned code in the first place > means they likely don't have the ability to judge its effects on their > pages. :-(
> daamsie - Thanks for proving dockarl right. :-() I can understand > your desire for reassurance but what would reassure you? If a Googler > saying something is so isn't enough, what more could be said or done > to satisfy?
> That asked, I understand your's and Sam I Am's problem. You have a > huge site that seems to be "penalized", you have already done a ton of > things trying to get it back to where it was but so far, nothing seems > to be working.
> Does that mean that what you have done so far has NOT been the > problem, in which case you should be able to safely undo everything > and try other things or does it mean that maybe some of what you have > done was needed but that you just haven't found that last thing that > is holding your site back?
> Back to your question though, "How can Google really assure us that > googlebot is intelligent enough to tell the difference?"
> The problem is, only you can answer that because only you know what > assurance you need.
> For me personally, my "assurance" is that Google can not only see > every site on the Internet but more so, analyze it all as one piece, > so to speak. With all that data available, you almost don't have to > look for patterns, they virtually pop out and slap you in the face.
> Also, it is not all that hard to infer intent even without Google's > vast storage and processing capabilities. How hard is it to look at > something, something hidden for example, and figure out why it is > hidden? If you see something hidden, like a header or a menu item or > whatever and it looks spammy as hell, that is not so hard to discern. > But, if what is hidden fits in with the rest of the page, and possibly > the rest of the site, it is a natural element within the architecture > of the site and the intent for hiding whatever it is wouldn't be > malicious as there would be no benefit in doing so.
> I do understand though, in the situation you are in, you essentially > have to second and third guess everything because so far, nothing you > have heard has gotten your site back to where it was previously. I > wish there was a "magic bullet" I could suggest but I've run out of > ideas.
> But at the same time, there comes a point where you have to decide > what can and can't be where problems may be because otherwise, you end > up with a blank page with nothing on it which would then itself become > a reason for a site not doing too terribly well either.
> Your and Sam I Am's situation is one of the VERY few situations where > I wish Google would give a direct answer as to why a site has tanked. > Both of you have tried EVERYTHING suggested, no matter how much you or > anyone else disagreed but nothing has gotten you anywhere.
>How can we ensure Google doesn't misunderstand our intentions? We >still have no idea.
After reading a number of posts in this forum by various site managers who suddenly found their site suspended, it appears that most either (a) didn't know that they had hidden text, or (b) thought the hidden text was an innocuous application. A typical post from a site manager is: --------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clueless2 Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:58:44 -0700 Local: Sat, Oct 6 2007 5:58 am Subject: Finding Hidden Text
A largish website that I currently manage was recently suspended from Google's index apparently due to the presence of hidden text.
The warning message from Google did not however indicate which page(s) contained the offending hidden text.
Since the site is more than 10 years old and a number of people have worked on it in the past, I am not quite sure which page(s) is (are) creating the problem.
Can someone please suggest an efficient (i.e. mechanical / automatic way) of finding out? The site was built and maintained by MS FrontPage
Thanks for any advice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In almost every case, the site manager wants to fix the problem, but is puzzled by how to find the hidden text and what to do once he or she does so. One can argue that because their site is suspended site managers have an incentive to do so quickly, but leaving them hanging without a clue is not what I would consider good public relations on Google's part. Some here will also argue that telling people what is wrong with their site will simply embolden black hat SEO but I think you have to weigh that against the ill will and frustration that is generated by leaving the vast majority of other site managers in the dark. This would be akin to the IRS never telling taxpayers what the rules are for reporting income simply because some taxpayers might then try to get around the rules. If Google does not want to tell site managers what specificaly is wrong with their site, then a simple courtesy would be to include a link to an explanation of how a site manager can detect and fix hidden content.
> Craig, thanks for that answer and as you know both Sam and I > appreciate everyone's input here.. no matter how much we might > disagree with the logic sometimes (as in the hidden text suggestions > early on..)
> You are right I suppose that I should accept the comment as some > assurance. The issue is that they speak in terms of "intent". Well, > intent is only measurable by the person who performs an action. Even > what may seem to be clear spam may have been a simple mistake by an > uneducated site owner. I've seen people who have believed it to be > good/normal practice to post a list of keywords at the bottom of the > page - the justification being that this is the logical way to tell > Google what a page is about. So the intent there is not necessarily > wrong, but the execution certainly is quite spammy.
> So when Google's answer boils down to nothing more than "if you > intended well, then you're OK", I take very little joy from that. > Google penalizes sites WITHOUT consulting webmasters about their > intent, so how can they pretend to detect what we intended? If they > aren't even willing to talk to us, how can they read our minds?
> In answer to what assurances would actually make me happy; I guess > some clear indication of what coding techniques are actually likely to > cause an automated flag for spam? And some understanding of how Google > deals with such a flag? Do they simply penalize a site and then > automatically review it again a few months later? Or do they send in a > human to review before dooming the site to hell?
> All we have learnt from this post is 1 example where hidden text is > acceptable and where Google managed to correctly detect intent. But > really, it's unsurprising that Google can detect their own intent!
> One thing has been made clear. Hidden text *can* be OK.
> How can we ensure Google doesn't misunderstand our intentions? We > still have no idea.
> On Oct 6, 5:07 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > Sam I AM - I'm with you 1,000%! The right tool in the wrong hands is > > a dangerous thing indeed!
> > dockarl - Right, as always, and it didn't take long for you to be > > proved right! :-()
> > JLH - It's GREAT to see you back! While most questions asked since > > you said, "bye" would have been a waste of your time, as a simple read > > of the FAQs would have been sufficient, there have been a small few > > that could have used the understanding you bring to this group that I > > have not seen from anyone else!
> > Webado - Good point! If CSS turns it "off" but Javascript is required > > to turn it "on", that could be a problem although it might not be if > > the intent is clear and what is turned off is not spammy. In any > > event though, this was not the case in Sam I Am and daamsie's site.
> > It still makes me wish thought that more people thought about the > > effects of the techniques they use across all possible browser > > conditions. I think the bigger problem though is all the "plug-n-pray" > > javascript menus and libraries and such that end up being usage > > hostile but that people use over and over and over again. The very > > fact that they need to use a library or canned code in the first place > > means they likely don't have the ability to judge its effects on their > > pages. :-(
> > daamsie - Thanks for proving dockarl right. :-() I can understand > > your desire for reassurance but what would reassure you? If a Googler > > saying something is so isn't enough, what more could be said or done > > to satisfy?
> > That asked, I understand your's and Sam I Am's problem. You have a > > huge site that seems to be "penalized", you have already done a ton of > > things trying to get it back to where it was but so far, nothing seems > > to be working.
> > Does that mean that what you have done so far has NOT been the > > problem, in which case you should be able to safely undo everything > > and try other things or does it mean that maybe some of what you have > > done was needed but that you just haven't found that last thing that > > is holding your site back?
> > Back to your question though, "How can Google really assure us that > > googlebot is intelligent enough to tell the difference?"
> > The problem is, only you can answer that because only you know what > > assurance you need.
> > For me personally, my "assurance" is that Google can not only see > > every site on the Internet but more so, analyze it all as one piece, > > so to speak. With all that data available, you almost don't have to > > look for patterns, they virtually pop out and slap you in the face.
> > Also, it is not all that hard to infer intent even without Google's > > vast storage and processing capabilities. How hard is it to look at > > something, something hidden for example, and figure out why it is > > hidden? If you see something hidden, like a header or a menu item or > > whatever and it looks spammy as hell, that is not so hard to discern. > > But, if what is hidden fits in with the rest of the page, and possibly > > the rest of the site, it is a natural element within the architecture > > of the site and the intent for hiding whatever it is wouldn't be > > malicious as there would be no benefit in doing so.
> > I do understand though, in the situation you are in, you essentially > > have to second and third guess everything because so far, nothing you > > have heard has gotten your site back to where it was previously. I > > wish there was a "magic bullet" I could suggest but I've run out of > > ideas.
> > But at the same time, there comes a point where you have to decide > > what can and can't be where problems may be because otherwise, you end > > up with a blank page with nothing on it which would then itself become > > a reason for a site not doing too terribly well either.
> > Your and Sam I Am's situation is one of the VERY few situations where > > I wish Google would give a direct answer as to why a site has tanked. > > Both of you have tried EVERYTHING suggested, no matter how much you or > > anyone else disagreed but nothing has gotten you anywhere.
>> Can someone please suggest an efficient (i.e. mechanical / automatic >> way) of finding out? The site was built and maintained by MS >> FrontPage > In almost every case, the site manager wants to fix the problem, but > is puzzled by how to find the hidden text and what to do once he or > she does so.
Clueless is still in another thread with the same problem.
One option is to hire a professional (excluding myself, because I'm making the suggestion). But really, web coding is a professional activity - no one would have expected to write their own banking applications back in the 1960s, and the execution environment today is a LOT more complex. There are no unforgiving compilers and no certified architectures.
But a possible solution is in the first quote. These large sites are not built page by page - they're generated by some system or other and there are almost always templates of some kind around - if the error can be found on a small sample of pages and it's template-related, you're home. You can't make 800 different errors on 800 pages - it will with near 100% certainty be exactly the same error on all pages. Even 'orrible tools like grep can fix those.
> Clueless is still in another thread with the same problem.
> ... You can't make 800 different errors on 800 pages - it > will with near 100% certainty be exactly the same error on all pages.
Phil - Clueless2 is NOT in another thread with the same problem - FYI, his message was copied / quoted by SEQuest into this thread.
The 800+ page site was developed over 10 years by various people (each with their own SEO ideas and styles) and Clueless2 is the current webmaster. If there was a 'simple' way of fixing a few template pages to make a global change, that would have been done long ago without need to seek help here.
And yes, hiring a professional to fix the problem is a solution - but not everybody can afford every solution. DIY must remain an option ...
Clueless2 - try using the w3c css validator tool. It will find css errors AND warnings - and ti's usually in the warning that you find the light. It's typically divs that have an image background and no color background defined and the text color ends up being the same or close to the inherited background color. Or the other way around. The validator will point out that for such and such class or div you have set a color but no background color or vice versa. That's your BIG clue. Things can get complicated if the html code is also invalid and/or if style details are introduced in html either as in-line style or font tags, etc. But when you clean up the code to reduce or eliminate that things tend to fall into place. And with template driven sites it's true it can be done in a few central spots and you're in business for most or all of the site.
> > Clueless is still in another thread with the same problem.
> > ... You can't make 800 different errors on 800 pages - it > > will with near 100% certainty be exactly the same error on all pages.
> Phil - Clueless2 is NOT in another thread with the same problem - > FYI, his message was copied / quoted by SEQuest into this thread.
> The 800+ page site was developed over 10 years by various people (each > with their own SEO ideas and styles) and Clueless2 is the current > webmaster. If there was a 'simple' way of fixing a few template pages > to make a global change, that would have been done long ago without > need to seek help here.
> And yes, hiring a professional to fix the problem is a solution - but > not everybody can afford every solution. DIY must remain an option ...
> The 800+ page site was developed over 10 years by various people (each > with their own SEO ideas and styles) and Clueless2 is the current > webmaster. If there was a 'simple' way of fixing a few template pages > to make a global change, that would have been done long ago without > need to seek help here.
So you say all these people managed to make what appears to be the same mistake?
Some extra clarification on this issue has come out Matt Cutts in a very enlightening interview on Stontemple (http://www.stonetemple.com/ articles/interview-matt-cutts.shtml)
"Matt Cutts: We use a combination of algorithmic and manual things to find hidden text. I think Google is alone in notifying Webmasters about relatively small incidences of hidden text, because that is something where we'll try to drop an email to the Webmaster, and alert them in Webmaster Central. Typically, you'd get a relatively short- term penalty from Google, maybe 30 days for something like that. But, that can certainly go up over time, if you continue to leave the text on your page.
Eric Enge: Right. So, a 30 days penalty in this sort of situation, is that getting removed from the index, or just de-prioritizing their rankings?
Matt Cutts: Typically with hidden text, a regular person can look at it and instantly tell that it is hidden text. There are certainly great cases you could conjure up where that is not the case, but the vast majority of the time it's relatively obvious. So, for that it would typically be a removal for 30 days.
Then, if the site removes the hidden text or does a reconsideration request directly after that it could be shorter. But, if they continue to leave up that hidden text then that penalty could get longer."
So from that comment, it is now clear that Google does *manually* check for hidden text. That to me is reassuring .. sort of.
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
> So from that comment, it is now clear that Google does *manually* > check for hidden text. That to me is reassuring .. sort of.
I'm not understanding that it is necessarily a manual check. I understand it is a programmatic check first that indicates hiddent text which triggers the initial 30 day penalty and that Matt said in that case even a regular individual will usually spot the hidden text by doing a visual/manual inspection of the page/source code. The manual check must come about after the reconsideration request has been filed when the programmatic check shows no longer any problem, as a confirmatin that this is the case and not just cleverly disguised hidden text again that foils the programmatic check.
So the bit where he says "We use a combination of algorithmic and manual things to find hidden text" doesn't to you indicate that they use manual things to find hidden text?
> > So from that comment, it is now clear that Google does *manually* > > check for hidden text. That to me is reassuring .. sort of.
> I'm not understanding that it is necessarily a manual check. I > understand it is a programmatic check first that indicates hiddent > text which triggers the initial 30 day penalty and that Matt said in > that case even a regular individual will usually spot the hidden text > by doing a visual/manual inspection of the page/source code. The > manual check must come about after the reconsideration request has > been filed when the programmatic check shows no longer any problem, > as a confirmatin that this is the case and not just cleverly disguised > hidden text again that foils the programmatic check.
Interestingly, I've been reading an older interview with Vanessa Fox, which indicates fairly clearly that in "reconsideration requests", the review is also, at least partially, manual.
Excerpt here:
"Eric Enge: Right. So, the notion here is that there are penalties other than full banishment from the index that could potentially benefit from a manual review by Google, if you rectified the thing that caused the penalty to take place.
Vanessa Fox: That form is really for situations where you have violated the guidelines in some way, and you've fixed it. Then you can use those forms to have someone take a look at it as opposed to just waiting over time for things to naturally pickup again. You can say hey, I know that there is this issue and I have made the fix, so please do our review."
> > So from that comment, it is now clear that Google does *manually* > > check for hidden text. That to me is reassuring .. sort of.
> I'm not understanding that it is necessarily a manual check. I > understand it is a programmatic check first that indicates hiddent > text which triggers the initial 30 day penalty and that Matt said in > that case even a regular individual will usually spot the hidden text > by doing a visual/manual inspection of the page/source code. The > manual check must come about after the reconsideration request has > been filed when the programmatic check shows no longer any problem, > as a confirmatin that this is the case and not just cleverly disguised > hidden text again that foils the programmatic check.
Thanks for the clarification Wysz. I asked that question in the "popular picks" post because I see a LOT of questions about why their site was de-indexed and it usually leads me to hidden text. (And also thanks for the kudos for meantioning my name ;)
> In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > from our index.
> Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > some work to do.
> In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > you can see, no hidden text.
> But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > before: > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > ticket out of Google's index.
> When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > particular aspects this topic.
That'll teach me not to subscribe to a thread! All these deeply thought through posts I nearly missed! :)
daamsie, that example is of a page we disallowed after some comments by Matt back in Jan or Feb about search pages, but I'm sure examples can be found somewhere, like the blogs page where the advanced part of the search form is hidden. Incidently, I tried it with javascript disabled and although that should work, it doesn't (takes you to the wrong page, and you have to click on a link two over to get the full form showing) - but obviously the intent was that it would go there.
Anyway, I found the practical example a particularly helpful part of the answer so I hope that's something we can see being utilized more often. I'm sure this thread is going to be quoted quite a bit.
clueless2, I don't wish to offend you but cleaning up 800 pages is not THAT much work. I've had to go through hundreds of pages with previoius redesigns removing bits and adding bits. Thankfully all that work led to a situation where it now just requires a stylesheet or two to be changed, but that doesn't mean it's not been done at some stage. A few pots of coffee certainly help! While you're at it, you might want to look into making certain parts of the website template controlled so that if something needs changing across all pages you can do it with one quick edit. I know these things can be a lot of work, but hey, just a few hours less on Facebook and you're there LOL
> Thanks for the clarification Wysz. I asked that question in the > "popular picks" post because I see a LOT of questions about why their > site was de-indexed and it usually leads me to hidden text. (And also > thanks for the kudos for meantioning my name ;)
> On Oct 5, 5:40 pm, Wysz wrote:
> > In our "Popular Picks" thread, Burchman asked for some clarification > > on what Google considers to be hidden text, as our Webmaster > > Guidelines explicitly state that you should avoid hidden text or > > hidden links. We have a few examples of how text can be hidden in this > > Help Center article:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353
> > As I've noticed other users with similar questions in this group, such > > as "What if my navigation menu uses display:none to hide text until a > > button is rolled over?" I figured this would be a good topic to cover > > in "Popular Picks." The reason we perceive hidden text as a problem is > > that it serves content to search engines which users don't see, and > > presenting different content to search engines and users makes it more > > difficult to properly rank pages. If we detect that this text is > > intended to deceive search engines, there could be a negative effect > > on how your site is indexed and ranked in Google, including removal > > from our index.
> > Because such strong action may be taken on sites violating this > > guideline, it's understandable that many webmasters have expressed > > concerns about the possibility of Google incorrectly detecting > > legitimate content as hidden text. When trying to figure out if a page > > may have hidden text that Google would consider malicious, start by > > thinking about why the guideline was written in the first place: > > Google wants to see what the user sees. If the text that Google sees > > is the same that a normal user is supposed to see, then you should be > > good to go. If Google is seeing text that is intentionally hidden from > > the user in an effort to manipulate search engine rankings, you have > > some work to do.
> > In the top-left corner, you'll see a line of text: > > "Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more."
> > Google sees this text, and so do you, the user. So far, so good.
> > Next, let's make sure nobody wrote "search engine search find crawl > > index rank" in white text on the white background, with the intention > > of ranking for those terms. Google would see that, but a normal user > > wouldn't. Take off your "normal user" hat for a second and do a > > "Select All" on the page (by hitting CTRL-A on a PC, or COMMAND-A on a > > Mac, for instance). This will make any white on white text appear. As > > you can see, no hidden text.
> > But let's try one more thing: Render the page again without CSS > > enabled. The Web Developer extension for Firefox lets you do this > > pretty easily. Without CSS, you'll see several words we didn't see > > before: > > "Blog Search Blogger Books Calendar Documents Finance Groups Labs > > Orkut Patents Photos Products Reader Scholar."
> > You may have also noticed that these words appear in Google's text- > > only cache of itself, which is a good indication of how Google "sees" > > a site. But before you blog about your discovery of hidden links on a > > PR 10 site =), take a look at the page again with CSS enabled. This > > time, click on the "more" link, and voilą, the no-longer-hidden text > > appears. This text is part of the page's functionality, and it is > > meant for the user to read and use, not just for search engines to > > index. This text adds value for the user, which Google rewards, so > > Google would not hurt this site's ranking or remove it from the index > > for that reason. Many sites use similar methods for navigational menus > > and other functional elements, so please rest assured that the > > existence of display:none on your site is not on its own a one-way > > ticket out of Google's index.
> > When thinking about your own site, ask yourself if all of the text is > > there for the user. If the answer is "yes," great job! If the answer > > is "no," do your best to change it to a "yes," and call on your > > webmaster community (this group!) for advice if you need it. CSS menus > > and white space without hidden text should not be a cause of concern > > when it comes to Google indexing and ranking; the only thing you > > should be concerned about is how they affect your visitors.
> > In the "Popular Picks" thread we asked for non-site specific > > questions, but now that this has been separated into its own thread, > > here's your chance to ask about a site you are still unsure about. > > Please also let me know if you would like further clarification on > > particular aspects this topic.
google for "web design banbury"...3 of the top ten listed sites cheat...use hidden text. One uses 70+ hidden "img", "a" tags....google's never removed them...not fair and obviously allowed?
Do you mean for example the holder of the No.1 position in the SERPS for [ web design banbury ] (Banbury being a town in the UK) ?
Is it the page with: <img src="banbury-web-design.gif" border="0" class="oxfordshire-web- design" alt="Banbury web design" style="position:absolute; visibility:hidden;">
repeated over 20 times consecutively at the bottom of the page?
Is it likely that that page gets to No.1 (a) "because of"; or (b) "in spite of" such techniques?
> google for "web design banbury"...3 of the top ten listed sites > cheat...use hidden text. One uses 70+ hidden "img", "a" > tags....google's never removed them...not fair and obviously allowed?
|
