Well, ...Berghausen... has shared some informative comments regarding
'hiding' things when making a design.
Unfortunately for ...Berghausen..., this was stated in one of those
posts:
> If you have other questions, especially about hidden text / content,
> feel free to start another thread. That's a topic I know several
> members, counting myself, are usually more than willing to discuss.
> -Bergy
No idea if it was aimed specifically at the previous poster, or made
in general... so I'm jumping on the offer.
There are numerous fancy/clever ways to make you websites navigation
look and behave.
Yet there is often a bit of confusion/fear when it comes to some of
the styling/actions applied, and what Google will think about it (it's
not visible... am I going to get a penalty for cloaking? etc.).
So, with any luck, some of the G folk will post and make it abundantly
clear that certain things should be okay, whilst other things could
cause problems.
Off the top of my head... the following!
Scenario 1)
I have a Javascript only navigation bar on my site.
If I turn JS off, I do not see my navigation on the page, and I cannot
see the links in the source code either.
Questions for Scenario 1)
A) As there is content on my website that the bots cannot see, but
Humans can - will I suffer a penalty or be de-indexed for hidden
content or cloaking?
B) If the navigation is the only means of getting to pages (no visitor
sitemap, no normal links in the pages, no XML sitemap etc.), will
Googel still crawl my site?
C1) If I have other links on the pages, and you can still get to those
pages without the JS Navigation, will Google still crawl my site?
C2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently? (Worth a
shot! ;))
D1) If I have a link to a Visitor sitemap, with normal links to all
the pages, will this let Google crawl my site?
D2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently? (Worth another
shot! ;))
E1) If I supply an XML sitemap, can the bots crawl my site based on
that, so it doesn't matter about the JS only navigation?
E2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently? (;))
Scenario 2)
I have a CSS based navigation bar on my site (it uses a little JS for
IE etc.).
If I turn CSS off, I can see the links on the page.
With JS and CSS of on and off, I can see the links in the source code.
Questions for Scenario 2)
A) As there is content on my website that Humans cannot see without
performing actions such as hover, but Bots can - will I suffer a
penalty or be de-indexed for hiding or cloaking content from visitors?
B) If the navigation is the only means of getting to pages (no visitor
sitemap, no normal links in the pages, no XML sitemap etc.), will
Googel still crawl my site?
C1) If I have other links on the pages, and you can still get to those
pages without the CSS Navigation, will Google still crawl my site?
C2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently?
D1) If I have a link to a Visitor sitemap, with normal links to all
the pages, will this let Google crawl my site?
D2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently?
E1) If I supply an XML sitemap, can the bots crawl my site based on
that, so it doesn't matter about the CSS only navigation?
E2) If it can crawl my site, will I rank differently? (;))
Scenario 3)
I have links on my site/page that I hide from view so that they do not
spoil the design (I may hide them using positioning or making the
background and text colours the same). These are legitimiate links,
including target links (such as SkipToContent and JumpToNavigation)
and Site-Links (such as to the Accessibility page, the Contact page
and the Visitor Sitemap), and are there as an accessibility aid.
These may become 'visible' when users use the tab key, hover over the
spaceor employ functions of an accessibility tool.
Questions for Scenario 2)
A) As there is content on my website that Humans cannot see without
performing actions such as hover, but Bots can - will I suffer a
penalty or be de-indexed for hiding or cloaking content from visitors?
B) Is there a preference on how to hide such links? (worth a go -
some ways may be less risky!)
C) Will it affect my site/page rankings by using such links/methods?
Scenario 4)
I have a few/several/tons of links that I am hiding from visitors.
These are links to other sites.
I am hiding them using CSS so the bots can see them but humans cannot.
Questions for Scenario 2)
A) As there is content on my website that Humans cannot see, but Bots
can - will I suffer a penalty or be de-indexed for hiding or cloaking
content from visitors?
Well, thats me out of ideas... anyone else got some typical examples
(or not so typical ones)?
Well, Autocrat, I guess we asked for it! You did a great job of
breaking this out into specific methods, so I'll do my best to address
each scenario individually. The question of "Will this particular
technique always affect or not affect my status in Google?" is not
something that I can answer, as crawling, indexing, and ranking are
all constantly evolving processes. We do our best to make sure that we
can serve the most relevant content to users, so removing all pages
that happen to use a new technique that Googlebot does not yet
understand would not be in our best interest. However, if you feel we
may have incorrectly detected some deceptive behavior on your site,
please feel free to ask for a second look by submitting a
reconsideration request:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
So while I will not say, "Yes, this will always work! You will never
be banned!" for a particular scenario, I will give my thoughts on how
each scenario is likely to be viewed by Google. But before I answer
these specific questions, I encourage everyone to read some more
general guidance in one of my earlier posts, which should explain the
reasoning behind my answers:
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
Scenario 1: JavaScript-only navigation
A) While not desirable from an accessibility perspective, this doesn't
appear to deceive search engines and is unlikely to cause a ranking
problem.
B) While we're always working to improve how we discover content,
regular HTML links are your best bet for navigation that Googlebot can
crawl. If you'd like to read more about some of our efforts which go
beyond HTML links, check out our blog post:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/04/crawling-through-h...
C1) Normal HTML anchors should still be crawled without a problem.
C2) Nice try. :-)
D1) Yep, as long as you're using regular HTML links, Googlebot should
have no problem getting around.
D2) GOTO C2
E1) Sitemaps are a great way to give Google a better understanding of
your site, but they do not guarantee crawling, just as we can't
guarantee we'll crawl every link we find on the web. If a Sitemap is
the only way we know about your URLs, I'd say that you're
significantly reducing the chance that we will crawl them.
E2) GOTO D2
Scenario 2: CSS-enhanced navigation
A) This sounds a lot like what I described in my post (linked above)
when describing Google.com. I don't mean to brag or anything, but
we're ranking pretty well. I wouldn't worry about it as long as
there's no intent to deceive search engines. This scenario is also
good for accessibility, since it degrades gracefully as JavaScript and
CSS support are removed.
B) If someone using a browser that cannot understand CSS or JavaScript
can still follow your links, then Google should be able to follow them
as well. You can test this out in a few ways, including disabling
JavaScript and CSS in your current browser, viewing your page in Lynx,
or looking at the text-only version of Google's cache of your page.
C) Google should be able to follow these links and rank your pages
normally.
D) Google should be able to follow these links and rank your pages
normally.
E) Google should be able to use your Sitemap normally. And I'd
disagree that the navigation is CSS-only if you can view it without
CSS. :-) I wouldn't worry about this causing ranking issues.
Scenario 3: Hidden links via positioning/color, for design/
accessibility
A) I'm glad you asked this question as it is a fair concern that
webmaster have. This scenario can bring you dangerously close to a
grey area, so it's important to be careful when going this route.
"SkipToContent" isn't likely to be interpreted by anyone as an attempt
at deception, unless the term "SkipToContent" becomes a highly
competitive keyword. (Sounds like a good name for a rock band.)
However, imagine what happens when these hidden links do contain
keywords you're trying to rank for... we wouldn't want them to affect
ranking if a normal user cannot see them. In general, proper use of
these accessibility aids should not cause a problem, and we've seen
plenty of sites implement them without a negative impact on ranking.
But, at the moment hidden content goes beyond accessibilty, your cause
for concern becomes much more warranted.
B) Considering my explanation above, I'd suggest using designs which
degrade gracefully for users with limited capabilities, rather than
designs which require you to maintain separate elements for each set
of users. This is why I'm a fan of Scenario 2.
C) If implemented in a non-deceptive manner, these aids should not
cause a problem.
Scenario 4: Hidden links with no mention of accessibility or user
value
A) Based on the information you provided, I'm going to assume that
these links are only intended for bots to see as attempt to deceive
search engines. That's probably not an assumption you want a Googler
to make. When making this judgement on your own, just ask yourself
this question: "Is all of this text here for the user?" If you want to
make Google (and your users) happy, the answer should always be "Yes."
Thanks for your questions, Autocrat! Oh, and thanks a LOT, Bergy. ;-)
> Well, Autocrat, I guess we asked for it! You did a great job of
> breaking this out into specific methods, so I'll do my best to address
> each scenario individually. The question of "Will this particular
> technique always affect or not affect my status in Google?" is not
> something that I can answer, as crawling, indexing, and ranking are
> all constantly evolving processes. We do our best to make sure that we
> can serve the most relevant content to users, so removing all pages
> that happen to use a new technique that Googlebot does not yet
> understand would not be in our best interest. However, if you feel we
> may have incorrectly detected some deceptive behavior on your site,
> please feel free to ask for a second look by submitting a
> reconsideration request:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35843
> So while I will not say, "Yes, this will always work! You will never
> be banned!" for a particular scenario, I will give my thoughts on how
> each scenario is likely to be viewed by Google. But before I answer
> these specific questions, I encourage everyone to read some more
> general guidance in one of my earlier posts, which should explain the
> reasoning behind my answers:http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...
> Scenario 1: JavaScript-only navigation
> A) While not desirable from an accessibility perspective, this doesn't
> appear to deceive search engines and is unlikely to cause a ranking
> problem.
> B) While we're always working to improve how we discover content,
> regular HTML links are your best bet for navigation that Googlebot can
> crawl. If you'd like to read more about some of our efforts which go
> beyond HTML links, check out our blog post:http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/04/crawling-through-h...
> C1) Normal HTML anchors should still be crawled without a problem.
> C2) Nice try. :-)
> D1) Yep, as long as you're using regular HTML links, Googlebot should
> have no problem getting around.
> D2) GOTO C2
> E1) Sitemaps are a great way to give Google a better understanding of
> your site, but they do not guarantee crawling, just as we can't
> guarantee we'll crawl every link we find on the web. If a Sitemap is
> the only way we know about your URLs, I'd say that you're
> significantly reducing the chance that we will crawl them.
> E2) GOTO D2
> Scenario 2: CSS-enhanced navigation
> A) This sounds a lot like what I described in my post (linked above)
> when describing Google.com. I don't mean to brag or anything, but
> we're ranking pretty well. I wouldn't worry about it as long as
> there's no intent to deceive search engines. This scenario is also
> good for accessibility, since it degrades gracefully as JavaScript and
> CSS support are removed.
> B) If someone using a browser that cannot understand CSS or JavaScript
> can still follow your links, then Google should be able to follow them
> as well. You can test this out in a few ways, including disabling
> JavaScript and CSS in your current browser, viewing your page in Lynx,
> or looking at the text-only version of Google's cache of your page.
> C) Google should be able to follow these links and rank your pages
> normally.
> D) Google should be able to follow these links and rank your pages
> normally.
> E) Google should be able to use your Sitemap normally. And I'd
> disagree that the navigation is CSS-only if you can view it without
> CSS. :-) I wouldn't worry about this causing ranking issues.
> Scenario 3: Hidden links via positioning/color, for design/
> accessibility
> A) I'm glad you asked this question as it is a fair concern that
> webmaster have. This scenario can bring you dangerously close to a
> grey area, so it's important to be careful when going this route.
> "SkipToContent" isn't likely to be interpreted by anyone as an attempt
> at deception, unless the term "SkipToContent" becomes a highly
> competitive keyword. (Sounds like a good name for a rock band.)
> However, imagine what happens when these hidden links do contain
> keywords you're trying to rank for... we wouldn't want them to affect
> ranking if a normal user cannot see them. In general, proper use of
> these accessibility aids should not cause a problem, and we've seen
> plenty of sites implement them without a negative impact on ranking.
> But, at the moment hidden content goes beyond accessibilty, your cause
> for concern becomes much more warranted.
> B) Considering my explanation above, I'd suggest using designs which
> degrade gracefully for users with limited capabilities, rather than
> designs which require you to maintain separate elements for each set
> of users. This is why I'm a fan of Scenario 2.
> C) If implemented in a non-deceptive manner, these aids should not
> cause a problem.
> Scenario 4: Hidden links with no mention of accessibility or user
> value
> A) Based on the information you provided, I'm going to assume that
> these links are only intended for bots to see as attempt to deceive
> search engines. That's probably not an assumption you want a Googler
> to make. When making this judgement on your own, just ask yourself
> this question: "Is all of this text here for the user?" If you want to
> make Google (and your users) happy, the answer should always be "Yes."
> Thanks for your questions, Autocrat! Oh, and thanks a LOT, Bergy. ;-)
...Wysz...
Thank you very very much... I might just have to go and dump a link
to this thread on several forums and such... as it goes a long way to
removing a lot of 'fear and theory'.
No, I didn't expect 'absolute definitive' answers... just hoping for a
little more light to help remove a little more of the grey :D
RE:
C2) Nice try. :-)
[Darn... thought I'd get atesat one by you]
And I was expecting to pull ...Berghausen... in on this (as they are
the one who kind of offered - so again, much thanks).
Maybe you could kind of push/prod (bully) for the other one of these ;)
> ...Wysz...
> Thank you very very much... I might just have to go and dump a link
> to this thread on several forums and such... as it goes a long way to
> removing a lot of 'fear and theory'.
> No, I didn't expect 'absolute definitive' answers... just hoping for a
> little more light to help remove a little more of the grey :D
> RE:
> C2) Nice try. :-)
> [Darn... thought I'd get atesat one by you]
> And I was expecting to pull ...Berghausen... in on this (as they are
> the one who kind of offered - so again, much thanks).
> Maybe you could kind of push/prod (bully) for the other one of these ;)
I think it's a worth while goal to sort of 'compile' such things.
I intend to make reference to all the useful and informative posts
from this place (so I might end up including some of the stuff from
the G team LOL - sorry ;) ).
Plus I will keep trying to wangle the answers out on the really common/
obscure stuff (okay... it's obscure to some folk.. me being at least
one of them... possibly several).
