Account Options

  1. Sign in
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 26 - 50 of 52 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older  Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Sam I Am  
View profile  
 More options Jun 8 2007, 4:32 am
From: Sam I Am
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:32:12 -0700
Local: Fri, Jun 8 2007 4:32 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
 > 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.  ;-)

You guys crack me up. Igor, I'll never say my website design is
perfect, but the team and I know a lick of CSS, yes. I'm not scared to
post the url for competition purposes if that's what you are getting
at, it's free for them to look at anytime anyway and I know they do
considering the number of features we have that have been copied :)

Craig, I'm with you on the intent thing, I just think it is actually
really hard for google to spot intent and I know when googlebot makes
mistakes it can be painful... I think making guidelines like these
make it even harder for webmasters who do land in the doghouse to know
what to fix and what not to fix. I should go add this to the
'suggestions for webmaster central post' though, as essentially my
problem is not with the guidelines but giving webmasters the
information they need to make the fixes they have to. Some kind of
information like 'googlebot might be having a problem with *list of
items*' would be perfect - hey I can engage in wishful thinking
right? :)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
ivb  
View profile  
 More options Jun 8 2007, 4:52 am
From: ivb
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:52:47 -0000
Local: Fri, Jun 8 2007 4:52 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Sam, I am glad your team knows CSS!
How do you guys make money?
I see no advertising programs, just some affiliate stuff, that I do
not think people buy anyway.

Igor

On Jun 8, 5:32 pm, Sam I Am wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam I Am  
View profile  
 More options Jun 8 2007, 8:47 am
From: Sam I Am
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:47:38 -0700
Local: Fri, Jun 8 2007 8:47 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
We get paid to post on forums like this. Don't you? :)

On Jun 8, 10:52 am, ivb wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
ivb  
View profile  
 More options Jun 8 2007, 9:11 am
From: ivb
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:11:26 -0000
Local: Fri, Jun 8 2007 9:11 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Yeap! There was LP then came B&A followed by TF!

On Jun 8, 9:47 pm, Sam I Am wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Susan Moskwa Google employee  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 1:19 am
From: Susan Moskwa
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:19:26 -0000
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 1:19 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Hi folks--

Just wanted to let you know that I asked Matt about this at SMX last
week (I'm a big fan of accessibility and image replacement, so I was
curious about some of the same things you've brought up in this
thread). Craig is correct in saying that your intent (in hiding text,
or in using any technique that has the potential to be abused) is
important. If your intent in hiding text is to deceive the search
engines, we frown on that; if your intent is purely to improve the
visual user experience (e.g. by replacing some text with a fancier
image of that same text), you don't need to worry.

Of course, as with many techniques, there are shades of gray between
"this is clearly deceptive and wrong" and "this is perfectly
acceptable". Matt did say that hiding text moves you a step further
towards the gray area. But if you're running a perfectly legitimate
site, you don't need to worry about it. If, on the other hand, your
site already exhibits a bunch of other semi-shady techniques, hidden
text starts to look like one more item on that list. It's like how 1
grain of sand isn't noticeable, but many grains together start to look
like a beach.

As the Guidelines say, focus on intent. If you're using CSS techniques
purely to improve your users' experience and/or accessibility, you
shouldn't need to worry. One good way to keep it on the up-and-up (if
you're replacing text w/ images) is to make sure the text you're
hiding is being replaced by an image with the exact same text.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 2:41 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:41:16 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 2:41 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> is to make sure the text you're
> hiding is being replaced by an image with the exact same text.

I think that is where most people run into trouble, just as Danny (Not
of Gilbert &) Sullivan did when his site got somewhat erroneously
picked apart in another forum.

One problem with all replacement or many advanced DHTML techniques in
general is keeping the on-page code and the replacement content in
sync and up to date.

Me being lazy, I tend to avoid such techniques but then again, I like
boring-as-a-mud-fence web sites more out of self defense than as a
fashion statement.  :-()

Craig

P.s. Thanks for dropping by on this one Susan, I can understand why
Googlers don't comment on every post as 99.9999% of them are the same
but it is good to see your input on unique matters like this that come
up from time to time.  Consider this one bookmarked!!  :-)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Red Cardinal  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 2:42 am
From: Red Cardinal
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:42:05 -0000
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 2:42 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Hi Susan

Out of curiosity, how is intent determined algorithmically? Given that
Google isn't going to hand-evaluate each flagged site, does this mean
that if the algorythm sees enough grains of sand that then there may
be some penalty?

Rgds
Richard

On Jun 11, 6:19 am, Susan Moskwa wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
JohnMu  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 3:18 am
From: JohnMu
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:18:05 -0000
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 3:18 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
> Out of curiosity, how is intent determined algorithmically? Given that
> Google isn't going to hand-evaluate each flagged site, does this mean
> that if the algorythm sees enough grains of sand that then there may
> be some penalty?

Hi Richard
This is just my wild guess, but my guess is that you have to look at
the larger picture. As Susan said, "many grains of sand" ... assume
every grain of sand is a signal that is sent by your website. CSS
image replacement is just a tiny bit more than hiding content on your
page (except that the place where the hidden content should be is
filled with an image or similar). Hidden content through CSS is mostly
easy to recognize algorithmically. That's a grain of sand. If you're
replacing headers, that's probably another grain of sand (aka
"signal"). If your javascript does strange redirects, that's some
more, if your pages uses 10 lines of alt-text for a 1x1 pixel image
that's probably some more.

If you have enough grains of sand, if the Googlebot brings his beach-
towel when visiting your site, then chances are you've either gone too
far or things are being misinterpreted.

My guess is that there is a threshold of "sand" that brings a site
into a queue for a manual review. This is where intent and replacing
content with the same content in an image comes along. If things look
good, no problem, your personal threshold might get adjusted or things
might get updated in the algorithm, etc. This kind of review is
probably rare and I bet the queue is pretty long.

However, there is likely also a threshold where the Googlebot brings a
bulldozer instead of a beach-towel. That much sand just can't be an
accident. With that many signals being sent, it can be assumed that
the site is in fact doing something wrong on purpose (and I bet most
of the time they're right). These sites are likely to be penalized
automatically.

It's a bit like my email spam-filter works: it assigns a score based
on many, many rules. Below a certain number is ok, within a range
slightly above it's placed in a check-these queue, with a score way
above that it's automatically discarded.

I'll assume that the automatic penalties are pretty much ok, if you
have that many spam-signals in your site, then you're either doing a
whole lot of things wrong on accident or you're doing it on purpose.
The middle range is a bit harder: are they penalized with a pseudo-
penalty or are they really manually queued?

Also, which kind of items cause how many grains of sand? Hiding text
with CSS? Content duplicated from other sites? Sneaky javascript?
Stuffed headers? Link-exchanges? Links to strange sites? Interesting
things!!

John


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Chris Hunt  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 4:41 am
From: Chris Hunt
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:41:36 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 4:41 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Sam,

I don't think you have anything to worry about with regard to intent,
but there are a couple of things that you might want to consider...

You might avoid a "grain of sand" if you don't give the spans in your
menu a class of "hidden", that's got to ring some alarm bells
somewhere. You don't need a class there at all, just apply your css to

#primary_navigation span, #navigation_search span { ...rules in
here... }

You should also be aware that using display:none for this text can
cause problems for screen reader users. Not only do regular browsers
not show the text (which is what you want), many screen readers don't
read it out either (which isn't). If you only want to hide text
visually, but still get it read out, use absolute positioning to
"display" the text somewhere off the screen, say at top:-9999px .
http://www.google.com/search?q=screen+reader+display+none will find
plenty of stuff on this issue.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
silverstall  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 6:16 am
From: silverstall
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:16:07 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 6:16 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
i had a page that i could not get fully indexed for months until i
noticed in the CSS it had a -50px for one of its many layers. I fixed
it to remove the negative and a week later it was fully indexed and
remains so. My view is that any negative in CSS either for images or
layers will be attract a negative score in google.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
JohnMu  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 6:37 am
From: JohnMu
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:37:54 -0000
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 6:37 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
> i had a page that i could not get fully indexed for months until i
> noticed in the CSS it had a -50px for one of its many layers. I fixed
> it to remove the negative and a week later it was fully indexed and
> remains so. My view is that any negative in CSS either for images or
> layers will be attract a negative score in google.

Hmm... Strange, yes. So you believe the signals from the CSS files are
processed and reacted upon automatically? That would be interesting.
(understatement of the day :-))

Did Google crawl your CSS file in that timeframe (assuming you have an
external stylesheet)?

CSS files can be so complicated with regards to that crazy "cascading"
-- a tiny change in the (x)HTML page could move contents into a
completely different style, relative values get mixed with absolute
values and who knows how many browser dependent hacks even exist and
how they in turn cascade. I don't even want to mention Javascript or
different output media, lol. Is hiding content for mobile browsers a
bad thing?

All these things would make it very problematic to react to CSS files
automatically.

You wouldn't want to change that to -50px again, would you? just to
see what happens :-). Afterwards you can change it back to
+9999px :-))

John


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 8:39 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:39:27 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
I would think it depends.  I have a negative margin on a number of
elements and that hasn't seemed to effect anything negatively.  (pun
not necessarily intended)

The -50px that you had, what was it, element height or width, font
size, line height and what was it being applied to?

Craig

On Jun 11, 7:16 pm, silverstall wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 8:42 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:42:38 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 8:42 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> You wouldn't want to change that to -50px again, would you? just to
> see what happens :-). Afterwards you can change it back to
> +9999px :-))

That would be sort of much to ask of silverstall as it could cause the
loss of a page but if silverstall could find an element on one of my
pages that would appear to be suitable, I'd be more than happy to try
it out as I have a number of pages that while indexed, don't bring in
a lot of traffic from SEs so losing one of them temporarily would be
no great loss.

Of course it would be best if silverstall could try to duplicate the
results on the same page but not wanting to lose a page would be
understandable.  ;-)

Craig


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 9:50 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:50:45 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 9:50 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> The -50px was the positioning
> of a nested layer - it was 'top' .

Interesting. I'd have to take a stab at it though and say I think it
had to either have been coincidental or the css algo, if there is such
a beast, had to have been crudely created or amazingly intelligent
because a top:-50px style rule could either have no untoward rendering
effect, meaning the supposed algo is crude or under some conditions,
could have a rendering effect meaning the supposed algo was amazingly
intelligent.  I sort of have a hard time believing either scenario but
who knows.  It is interesting in any event!

> I'm convinced the impact is
> relatively small but if a page such as the one i worked is just
> slightly on the wrong side of a quality threshold that small
> difference was enough to push it over to the right side.

That"s what Susan and JohnMu seemed to be saying as well, a bunch of
little steps in the wrong direction and all of a sudden you are
floating in air, briefly for a nanosecond before plunging 1,000 meters
straight down.  :-()

> As usual this
> is all specualtion as for all i know it could have co-incided with an
> unknown source deciding to link to that page etc.

True, which is what I think is the case but the timing and the other
things you mentioned, it definitely would make one wonder!

> Running css.stylesheets through the W3C CSS validator often produces
> warnings about same colour backround/text etc which the
> motoricerca.info/spam-detector/ does not detect - i wonder therefore
> if googles alogs are more closely in tune with the W3C CSS checker.

Validating a style sheet would be about as useless as validating the
HTML.  Either one can be perfectly valid yet render nothing but
garbage and vice versa.

Looking for "signals" on the other hand, might not be all that
difficult although were one to get a bad case of div-itis or table-
itis or worse, a combination of both, I could see that making things
extremely difficult.

> Maybe google allocates to a site a percentage of permissable 'static'
> pages against dynamic/fresh content pages because despite it being a
> static page with a history of little or no changes, it has a good serp
> position. Other pages i have to change almost daily to maintain their
> position  and therefore i am loathed to change it back to -50px in
> case it moves the page into the 'needs to be a fresh and updated'
> field.

I doubt the static/dynamic/fresh thingy.  I've seen too many sites
that haven't been updated in literally half a decade that still rank
well, as much as I wish they wouldn't.  :-()

But at the same time, maybe the -50px was a negative signal and it
added to something else.  Only Google knows and is unlikely to give up
her secrets any time soon.  ;-)

I know, we should start a "-50px penalty" and see if we can get other
forums to go crazy on it.  I bet it wouldn't be all that hard!  :-()

> 'So you believe the signals from the CSS files are processed and
> reacted upon automatically?' - if they did not, then how would Googles
> cached pages have all the styling acquired from an external css. i.e
> the css is crawled at the same time.

Google's cache has everything, up to and including any javascript used
on the page.  The Google stuff that is added sometimes conflicts or
causes problems with a given page's styling but the cache is the
entire page and all its contents.

Craig


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
silverstall  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 10:02 am
From: silverstall
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:02:57 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 10:02 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Hi guys - the css was in fact inline on the page and the -50px related
to the top position of a nested layer. I made no other changes on it
(except i now remember at the time it enjoyed a spasmodic spike in
hits because of an image of a girl on the page wearing a silver cross
who subsqeuntly turned out to be a ladyboy) The css on the page was
frankly a mess complicated by nesting paypal tables inside nested
layers so maybe the change could have simpy just made it more
crawlable although i am still confused as to whether or how google
read an external css.
If google has a cached copy of a page it maintains all the syling from
an external css  presumably in the same way as images i.e through the
links on the page - or does it actually somewhere index the external
css itself ?

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
silverstall  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 10:06 am
From: silverstall
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:06:27 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 10:06 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Thanks casshacks - sorry i had to remove the earlier post because on
double checking the page i realised it did not have an external css -
duh my bad.

'I doubt the static/dynamic/fresh thingy.  I've seen too many sites
that haven't been updated in literally half a decade that still rank
well, as much as I wish they wouldn't.  :-() '
maybe that is true for one of their pages (maybe even the homepage)
but how has all their other pages ranked?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
silverstall  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 10:09 am
From: silverstall
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:09:15 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 10:09 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
just to satsify curiosity this is the ladyboy - he/she is a nice gal/
guy - whatever.
http://www.silverstall.com/images/silver/crosses/cross.jpg

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Phil Payne  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 10:52 am
From: Phil Payne
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:52:27 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 10:52 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> As the Guidelines say, focus on intent. If you're using CSS techniques
> purely to improve your users' experience and/or accessibility, you
> shouldn't need to worry. One good way to keep it on the up-and-up (if
> you're replacing text w/ images) is to make sure the text you're
> hiding is being replaced by an image with the exact same text.

I'm planning on using CSS hiding systematically to allow me to create
sets of pages that can be viewed either on screens or on handhelds.
There's a lot of room on a screen for decorative stuff and other
things.

For example, on some pages I want the copyright statement at the top
on a screen and at the bottom on a handheld.  So I put both in the
XHTML.  An @media screen display:none for the class used in the bottom
statement and an @media handheld display:none for the class used in
the top statement is the most elegant way to go - one XHTML page and
one CSS serves both media.

I don't see that Google can progammatically verify what CSS does
anyway.  First it would double the crawling bandwidth needed, and
secondly it would be trivial to serve the Googlebot with an innocuous
CSS.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 11:33 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:33:01 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 11:33 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> just to satsify curiosity this is the ladyboy - he/she is a nice gal/
> guy - whatever.http://www.silverstall.com/images/silver/crosses/cross.jpg

How did you get the css to tilt the image like that?

Or, am I thinking of the wrong curiosity here?  :-()

As for how the "other" pages ranked, these pages were pretty much one
hit wonders.  Many "sites" during that time period were no more than a
single page that someone tossed up and then seemed to have forgotten
about.  But then again, all bets are off for a single page web site
because it would seem to be either a 100% on or 100% off situation.

Craig

p.s. what did I miss that a ladyboy got into this conversation?  I can
see I am going to have to be paying a LOT more attention!  :-()


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
cass-hacks  
View profile  
 More options Jun 11 2007, 11:39 am
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:39:57 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 11:39 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text

> I don't see that Google can progammatically verify what CSS does
> anyway.  First it would double the crawling bandwidth needed, and
> secondly it would be trivial to serve the Googlebot with an innocuous
> CSS.

I don't see how it would double any bandwidth, if Google indexes the
pages it already has everything referenced in the page.

And of course it would be trivial to serve the Googlebot an innocuous
CSS but the same could be said for serving the bot anything innocuous
while serving everyone else something different.  CSS, HTML,
Javascript, wouldn't really matter.

I could think of a trivial brute-force method for determining to a
certain extent what CSS does, render the page and then run an OCR over
it.

I'm not saying how likely it is that Google does that but where there
is a trivial brute-force method thought up by a Neanderthal, like me,
there is usually a more elegant and efficient method possible to
someone who knows what they are doing, e.g. Google-heads.

Craig


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam I Am  
View profile  
 More options Jun 12 2007, 7:18 am
From: Sam I Am
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:18:35 -0700
Local: Tues, Jun 12 2007 7:18 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Susan, thanks so much for stopping by and answering the question! I
noticed a few other sites picking up on the answer already and I can
imagine it will trickle down into the standards based community quite
quickly too. It's good to know you have nothing to worry about if your
intent is solid, but that even if your intent is solid and you have a
few of these gray areas piling up it might result in something. At
least that gives someone 'in the doghouse' something to look at if the
cause for this might otherwise not be clear.

Given that further reading up on this method shows that there's quite
a few caveats when it comes to screen readers anyway (although it's a
great solution for mobile browsers who are an increasingly important
group to look at) I'm going to take a fresh look at a text based
solution as well. Chris, thank you for the pointers. It does seem like
a more viable alternative, although I'm now thinking avoiding all the
extra spans is the most semantically correct way to go in the long run
anyway. It's just a shame there's not more alternatives in terms of
fonts really!

On Jun 11, 5:39 pm, cass-hacks wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam I Am  
View profile  
 More options Jul 4 2007, 6:01 am
From: Sam I Am
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:01:40 -0700
Local: Wed, Jul 4 2007 6:01 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Reinclusion request submitted and fingers crossed it was caused by
googlebot misinterpreting the class="hidden" showing up in our
navigation!

On Jun 12, 1:18 pm, Sam I Am wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
ivb  
View profile  
 More options Jul 4 2007, 6:53 am
From: ivb
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:53:11 -0000
Local: Wed, Jul 4 2007 6:53 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Sam & Am it is nice that a high quality Webmaster like you finally
figured out not to use hidden!
I have been saying it for months but you guys all think you are
something special!
Even before Google updated the Quality Guideliness it said do not use
hidden!

Sam, now maybe you can get rid off your paid text links and you will
be on the way......

Igor

On Jul 4, 7:01 pm, Sam I Am wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam I Am  
View profile  
 More options Jul 4 2007, 7:05 am
From: Sam I Am
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:05:14 -0700
Local: Wed, Jul 4 2007 7:05 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Well, to be quite honest it does exactly the same thing, it just
doesn't say class="hidden" in the html.... effect is the same, but
this eliminates one likelihood of googlebot making a mistake when
assessing that content. If anything this is actually more spammy than
the other way around though, since now it's harder instead of easier
for googlebot to see that the text is hidden. But hey, I can live with
that if that is what Google wants!

And with paid text links I guess you mean those ones with
rel="nofollow" on them?

Any more comments you'd like to contribute without taking a second
look? :)

On Jul 4, 12:53 pm, ivb wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
ivb  
View profile  
 More options Jul 4 2007, 7:53 am
From: ivb
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:53:48 -0000
Local: Wed, Jul 4 2007 7:53 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
Sam I am not trying to bash you, but to educate you.

If you going to link to someone drop the nofollow!

If you going to have a directory make it free or paid but do not mix
the two!

If a Website is crappy paid or not paid, follow or not follow do not
recommend it in your directory!

So, drop the nofollow, and decide do you want to give a free vote or
get paid for the service of evaluating the Website before including it
in your directory.

You may think I am biased because I am a Webmaster for a Travel
Agency, but I am not.

The travel agents and small hotels are your friends, so show them some
support and link to them for free without a nofollow, good Karma
spreads around!!!

So if you think this hotel or travel agent is great and provides good
service, give a nice link.....

Igor

On Jul 4, 8:05 pm, Sam I Am wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Messages 26 - 50 of 52 < Older  Newer >
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »