Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
"Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, including .... Using CSS to hide text"
Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be able to view that content either."
As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers capabilities.
I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I think everyone will agree is not an option).
Have a look at the main navigation on my site www.travellerspoint.com for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in the image, just hidden using CSS.
I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on accessibility.
It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more without actually saying much of anything concrete.
Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, not being required.
> Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > able to view that content either."
> As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > capabilities.
> I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
So do you tend to use plain text for nav purposes in your 'basic pages' or use images? If you use images, do you have a fall back text option for fallback/mobile purposes etc?
Man, I'd really hate to have to replace good looking images with arial/ verdana font.... it just seems like going back in time 5 years!
> Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > accessibility.
> It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > not being required.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
When it comes to things artistic and graphics, I can't draw a straight line with a straight edge so guess what I use. :-()
Seriously though, not that I wasn't actually serious, I think the closest I would get to using images for navigation is by using background images with text on top. I'm also not a big fan of wild fonts but that is just a personal preference and also partly because I am not good at typesetting so I never got into custom fonts all that much.
I suppose what I would do were I to want to do full images for navigation would be scripted image replacement giving the user the option to turn the function off. You can see what I'm talking about at http://cass-hacks.com
The main content menu starts out as a tree structured list which on load is converted to the fly-out style using Javascript, only to test for the presence of Javascript because IE-6 needs it for the fly-out functionality. Firefox and all the others, including IE-7 can do the fly-out on CSS alone. But, using the user preference icons in the upper right corner, one can switch back and forth from list style to fly-out style. It is fugly and it is a lot of screwing around code/ process wise but it does work and at least it gives one the option of fly-out, which I hate, and list style, which I like.
So to make a long story just a bit longer, what I would do would be to serve a "plain" page and then modify it on the client side based on the clients' abilities and user preferences.
> So do you tend to use plain text for nav purposes in your 'basic > pages' or use images? If you use images, do you have a fall back text > option for fallback/mobile purposes etc?
> Man, I'd really hate to have to replace good looking images with arial/ > verdana font.... it just seems like going back in time 5 years!
> On Jun 7, 4:04 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> > The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > > accessibility.
> > It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> > Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > > not being required.
> > > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > > able to view that content either."
> > > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > > capabilities.
> > > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
> Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > accessibility.
> It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > not being required.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....- Hide quoted text -
You should stick with what you have. When you've the same text on an image, piece of flash or whatever, and in CSS hidden text which appears when the fancy stuff cannot be rendered, that's just a more elegant ALT text. The new detail page on cloaking is confusing and should be changed.
> Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > able to view that content either."
> As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > capabilities.
> I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
So, do I understand this correctly? If you have an image as navigation you can legitimately replace the image with text links based on the user agent and not be penalized for cloaking? Or you could be penalized so don't do it until they change the algo? I thought about doing this but didn't want to run the risk because it would be presenting different content to googlebot.
> You should stick with what you have. When you've the same text on an > image, piece of flash or whatever, and in CSS hidden text which > appears when the fancy stuff cannot be rendered, that's just a more > elegant ALT text. The new detail page on cloaking is confusing and > should be changed.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....- Hide quoted text -
I'd suggest looking at the general principles in Google's Guidelines here rather than trying to parse every last syllable. The Guidelines' prohibition against hidden text was written before Cascading Stylesheets (CSS) were so prevalent, and so their basic terminology has once again led to confusion. But when you strip away the jargon, Google obviously intends to prohibit what I would refer to as 'invisible keyword stuffing' - that is, creating keyword-heavy text that no sighted user would ever see using a conventional browser. Today's websites are much more dynamic than ever, and this often requires keeping text invisible until the proper user context arrives. Drop-down menus, pop-up information boxes, and many other very useful functions rely on what must technically be defined as 'hidden text', but there is no deception intended. And Google certainly realizes that or there would have be massive choruses of complaints from webmasters whose sites were dropped because of this kind of technical 'violation'.
On a practical side, while Google has a massive network of computers, I believe they would be hard-pressed to deploy a webpage analyzer/ rendering engine that would be sophisticated enough to determine whether the purpose of any hidden text it might discover was done solely for search engines or for completely legitimate purposes without an enormous decrease in overall efficiency. I suspect that they are limited to sniffing out suspicious situations by their crawler and relying on SPAM reports which all get passed to human reviewers for manual checks. However Google intends to proceed, it boils down to whether or not the hiding of the text was intended to enhance the users' experiences or simply to boost your search engine rankings. I've never seen a site get banned for a legitimate use of CSS to temporarily hide text, but even if it were to occur, I would expect Google would quickly approve any reinclusion request from a site that got flagged by mistake.
> So, do I understand this correctly? If you have an image as navigation > you can legitimately replace the image with text links based on the > user agent and not be penalized for cloaking? Or you could be > penalized so don't do it until they change the algo? I thought about > doing this but didn't want to run the risk because it would be > presenting different content to googlebot.
> Bill
> On Jun 7, 9:51 am, Sebastian wrote:
> > Great post Sam.
> > You should stick with what you have. When you've the same text on an > > image, piece of flash or whatever, and in CSS hidden text which > > appears when the fancy stuff cannot be rendered, that's just a more > > elegant ALT text. The new detail page on cloaking is confusing and > > should be changed.
> > > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > > able to view that content either."
> > > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > > capabilities.
> > > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....- Hide quoted text -
Craig you must lack a sense of humor! Give it a rest! I do not want to argue or fight with you! You remember what happened last time?
And you well know my forum is for Project Honeypot. I get no benefit from it. And I put in a lot of time to fix it up. So please go about your business and let's not argue.
"Project Honeypot" and "Honeynet Project" are both registered trademarks and considering both have law firms attached to their respective projects, using their registered trademark names is likely not a good idea.
Craig the Website is to get a list of Spaming domains, if the Website itself falls on that list I am willing to live with it! You are worng! I searched for project honeypot trademark and found nothing!
> "Project Honeypot" and "Honeynet Project" are both registered > trademarks and considering both have law firms attached to their > respective projects, using their registered trademark names is likely > not a good idea.
> On Jun 8, 1:08 am, ivb wrote:
> > Hey, here we go again! > > Read and learn what Project Honeypot is about!http://www.honeynet.org/
> > Craig, you really need to open your mind a bit, and stop being so > > ridged.
> > It is an open project, same like lynux, to clean up the internet.
> > On Jun 8, 1:04 am, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > And you well know my forum is for Project Honeypot.
> Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
Couldn't have put it better.
I'm using CSS to hide text - quite deliberately.
I have a set of XHTML pages that are designed for both screen and handheld viewing. The stylesheet uses @media screen and @media handheld blocks to suppress some headers, copyright statements, etc., that are just superfluous on a handheld device.
IMO handheld devices represent the future, and Google would be INSANE to discriminate against this approach.
I do not have great confidence in their coders, however.
Sorry Craig the link I gave you is about unspam. But I searched for Project Honeypot trademark and could not find anything. Honeypot is a generic name, so I do not believe it van be registered. Also will the government let it be registered because of a lot of controversy associated with the project.
http://www.honeynet.org/ talks about many people and organizations are setting up honeypots. So unless I see marka registrada next to Project Honeypot I will use the name as My or Our Project Honeypot, but I cannot say Unspam Project Honeypot.
> Craig the Website is to get a list of Spaming domains, if the Website > itself falls on that list I am willing to live with it! > You are worng! I searched for project honeypot trademark and found > nothing!
> > "Project Honeypot" and "Honeynet Project" are both registered > > trademarks and considering both have law firms attached to their > > respective projects, using their registered trademark names is likely > > not a good idea.
> > On Jun 8, 1:08 am, ivb wrote:
> > > Hey, here we go again! > > > Read and learn what Project Honeypot is about!http://www.honeynet.org/
> > > Craig, you really need to open your mind a bit, and stop being so > > > ridged.
> > > It is an open project, same like lynux, to clean up the internet.
> > > On Jun 8, 1:04 am, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > > And you well know my forum is for Project Honeypot.
Back to the topic at hand. Whilst I agree with both Sebastian and Craig and I guess what we've done is fine when you consider what google is really trying to get rid of, it gets messy imo when google makes a statement like this and doesn't give some kind of example of what is ok and what is not ok. If you ever do find yourself on the wrong side of google, it's tiny little nuances like this that you look to as possibly having triggered it (assuming of course you are not a total idiot and have massive quantities of hidden text you don't think caused it... :) ). You especially look at details like this because you know how hard it must be for an algo to come in and automatically detect what is or isn't normal usage of CSS to hide some text on the page.... let's face it, googlebot makes errors and you want to do everything possible to minimize the likelihood of this happening to you.
Then again, I appreciate how difficult it must be for Google to give an example because someone else is going to come along with another case that just barely doesn't fit the bill.... it's that margin of error that googlebot has that concerns me, especially when you can't check with google if you maybe have an incorrect penalty if it happens to you.
Sam, sorry I diverted your topic a bit, but Craig has a tendency to hang on every one of my wrods. I said it as a joke, but its better not to use your own Website when showing people how good your SEO work is! It can back fire for you, unless you think your Website design is perfect?
> Back to the topic at hand. Whilst I agree with both Sebastian and > Craig and I guess what we've done is fine when you consider what > google is really trying to get rid of, it gets messy imo when google > makes a statement like this and doesn't give some kind of example of > what is ok and what is not ok. If you ever do find yourself on the > wrong side of google, it's tiny little nuances like this that you look > to as possibly having triggered it (assuming of course you are not a > total idiot and have massive quantities of hidden text you don't think > caused it... :) ). You especially look at details like this because > you know how hard it must be for an algo to come in and automatically > detect what is or isn't normal usage of CSS to hide some text on the > page.... let's face it, googlebot makes errors and you want to do > everything possible to minimize the likelihood of this happening to > you.
> Then again, I appreciate how difficult it must be for Google to give > an example because someone else is going to come along with another > case that just barely doesn't fit the bill.... it's that margin of > error that googlebot has that concerns me, especially when you can't > check with google if you maybe have an incorrect penalty if it happens > to you.
> On Jun 7, 9:04 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > Thanks, and thanks for commenting :) > > Sebastian
> > On Jun 7, 4:57 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > > > but I don't know what else to do.
> > > Do what Sebastian suggests.
> > > Or, put the text in the title attribute of the anchor or the image.
> > > Screen readers should have no problem with either one although it > > > would make more sense to use the title attribute of the anchor.
> it gets messy imo when google > makes a statement like this and doesn't give some kind of example of > what is ok and what is not ok.
Exactly! But then again, if one ignores all the red herring text about webmasters doing this, that and some other thing, consider only the following, "If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, , ," one will have all the understanding one needs.
It is not *how* you do something but more importantly, the *intent* behind it. Do something to improve the visitor experience, two thumbs up, do something to game the search engines, be prepared for the consequences.
It may look like it could be a tiny nuance but it is in effect the full meaning and intent of the guideline itself.
Also, it may seem like determining intent is difficult but when you have all the data Google has to look at, it should not be that hard. Besides, how hard is it really to look at some code and determine its intended purpose? Neither HTML/XHTML, Javascript nor CSS is all that complicated.
Craig
p.s., ivb, don't flatter yourself. I have an 8 year old Russian Wolfhound that I have to follow around with a little plastic bag every time I let him outside. As ironic as it may seem, guess what his name is. ;-)
> > it gets messy imo when google > > makes a statement like this and doesn't give some kind of example of > > what is ok and what is not ok.
> Exactly! But then again, if one ignores all the red herring text > about webmasters doing this, that and some other thing, consider only > the following, "If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and > links that are deceptive in intent, , ," one will have all the > understanding one needs.
> It is not *how* you do something but more importantly, the *intent* > behind it. Do something to improve the visitor experience, two thumbs > up, do something to game the search engines, be prepared for the > consequences.
> It may look like it could be a tiny nuance but it is in effect the > full meaning and intent of the guideline itself.
> Also, it may seem like determining intent is difficult but when you > have all the data Google has to look at, it should not be that hard. > Besides, how hard is it really to look at some code and determine its > intended purpose? Neither HTML/XHTML, Javascript nor CSS is all that > complicated.
> Craig
> p.s., ivb, don't flatter yourself. I have an 8 year old Russian > Wolfhound that I have to follow around with a little plastic bag every > time I let him outside. As ironic as it may seem, guess what his name > is. ;-)
|
