Google says in it's Quality guidelines, and I quote:
"Make pages for users, not for search engines."
I use an image as a top banner which is displayed via CSS, so that I
can add other design and text elements over it. Not a new idea,
printed publications do this all the time.
I use a 'display: hidden' style for my <h1> for people who view the
site with CSS switched off. This is just a repeat of the text in the
image, ie the company's name and nothing else - ie it's NOT a list of
hidden keywords. As the background image with the company name is
placed as a background in CSS, I cannot use the alt tag, as Google
suggests for accessibility.
Niether would I rely on their suggestion of using javascript as a
valid method to the one I currently use. I don't know how to write
javascript, I use valide XHTML and CSS code to design my websites,
with a smattering of free/open source scripts that have already been
written by other developers. It makes sense for me to use the tools I
know to design sites rather than start to learn a new coding language
in order to make pages that fit to search engine guidelines - exactly
what Google advises you against doing.
Therefore, is Google breaking it's own guidelines for quality websites
AND is it not breaking the rules for accessibility? Does someone who
views sites without stylesheets not have the same right to see the
company name at the top of the site as everyone else?
I use this method a lot in my websites. Recemtly a client of mine has
hired an SEO company, who have removed my H1 tags because they say:
"In the meantime, the rules have changed and it`s dangerous to put
hidden text in the code, and over all, it`s against the rules of SEO,
of Google. "
I would like to hear from an official Google representative as to
whether this SEO company is correct in their assumptions.
This seems to be quite a big issue, especially if Google IS going stop
indexing sites that use the 'display: hidden' style, whether said site
is using it for legitimate or nefarious reasons. This seems totally
unfair and unreasonable, especially from an organisation I have always
thought was outward thinking and one that likes to make the World Wide
Web a better place to be for all of us.
I agree that search-engine spammers should be penalised, but I do not
agree to a blanket ban on sites that use a W3C standard CSS tag
legitimately.
I sincerely hope that a representative from Google will read this
message and respond, as I would like confirmation on this matter as
soon as possible.
Ermmm.... not wanting to sound funny.... but 'display:hidden' isn't
actually a very useful way to go about it.
Stacking the image in front using Z-index would be a better aproach
(and assign an overflow:hidden; to the container may help prevent text
breaking out on text resize).
That way, even with images off, people can see the text.
Additionally, hidden tends to cause problems with some assistive/
alterntive browser technologies.
As far as I know, you do not get deindexed/penalised for such things -
it's more based upon 'intent'.
(yes, I know, a bit of a cop-out line...)
But we have had some posts fro mteh G team covering the odd issue like
that.
In all cases that I've seen such, they have always pointed out 'good
intentions are fine' and in some cases mentioend possibly better ways
(as per above).
In most cases, what appears to be happening is a gut reaction out of
fear (understandably).
I searched the forums but couldn't find the particular thread but a
few months ago, one of the Google staff answered a similar question
and stated that some types of text (such as yours) isn't hidden. He
went on to explain that they mean hidden text to deceive the search
engine. Do a search to see if you can find that old post and someone
here will jump in and find it if they remember it better than I do.
> Google says in it's Quality guidelines, and I quote:
> "Make pages for users, not for search engines."
> I use an image as a top banner which is displayed via CSS, so that I
> can add other design and text elements over it. Not a new idea,
> printed publications do this all the time.
> I use a 'display: hidden' style for my <h1> for people who view the
> site with CSS switched off. This is just a repeat of the text in the
> image, ie the company's name and nothing else - ie it's NOT a list of
> hidden keywords. As the background image with the company name is
> placed as a background in CSS, I cannot use the alt tag, as Google
> suggests for accessibility.
> Niether would I rely on their suggestion of using javascript as a
> valid method to the one I currently use. I don't know how to write
> javascript, I use valide XHTML and CSS code to design my websites,
> with a smattering of free/open source scripts that have already been
> written by other developers. It makes sense for me to use the tools I
> know to design sites rather than start to learn a new coding language
> in order to make pages that fit to search engine guidelines - exactly
> what Google advises you against doing.
> Therefore, is Google breaking it's own guidelines for quality websites
> AND is it not breaking the rules for accessibility? Does someone who
> views sites without stylesheets not have the same right to see the
> company name at the top of the site as everyone else?
> I use this method a lot in my websites. Recemtly a client of mine has
> hired an SEO company, who have removed my H1 tags because they say:
> "In the meantime, the rules have changed and it`s dangerous to put
> hidden text in the code, and over all, it`s against the rules of SEO,
> of Google. "
> I would like to hear from an official Google representative as to
> whether this SEO company is correct in their assumptions.
> This seems to be quite a big issue, especially if Google IS going stop
> indexing sites that use the 'display: hidden' style, whether said site
> is using it for legitimate or nefarious reasons. This seems totally
> unfair and unreasonable, especially from an organisation I have always
> thought was outward thinking and one that likes to make the World Wide
> Web a better place to be for all of us.
> I agree that search-engine spammers should be penalised, but I do not
> agree to a blanket ban on sites that use a W3C standard CSS tag
> legitimately.
> I sincerely hope that a representative from Google will read this
> message and respond, as I would like confirmation on this matter as
> soon as possible.
I want the text to display to people who aren't usng stylesheets, the
legitimate CSS display: none tag allows me to do this in a simple,
clean, quick method, without the hassle of absolute positioning, z-
indexing, etc. It's a matter of preference. My method is valid and
therefore any sites I write using this method should not be banned by
Google.
My question is, should Google ban sites which are using a valide W3C
css rule? In my opinion, No!
And that is why I continue to use method in site navigation, skip
links, and as an image replacement method, as I cannot believe that
Google would implement a blanket ban.
What I would like is a definite answer from Google on this, in order
to make sure that my above asumption of Google is correct and so that
any SEO companies I work with can, in future, leave my code in place.
Thanks for the quick comments, BTW. And I will look into other simple,
clean, quick methods to achieve the same result, one that does not
cause problems in assistive / alterntive browser technologies. ( I had
read about this, so it's something I had on my ToDo list!)
I agree you need to find more info but using your home page as the
text is a far cry from keyword stuffing, keyword stuffing, keyword
stuffing garbage I think they are referring to.
> I want the text to display to people who aren't usng stylesheets, the
> legitimate CSS display: none tag allows me to do this in a simple,
> clean, quick method, without the hassle of absolute positioning, z-
> indexing, etc. It's a matter of preference. My method is valid and
> therefore any sites I write using this method should not be banned by
> Google.
> My question is, should Google ban sites which are using a valide W3C
> css rule? In my opinion, No!
> And that is why I continue to use method in site navigation, skip
> links, and as an image replacement method, as I cannot believe that
> Google would implement a blanket ban.
> What I would like is a definite answer from Google on this, in order
> to make sure that my above asumption of Google is correct and so that
> any SEO companies I work with can, in future, leave my code in place.
> Thanks for the quick comments, BTW. And I will look into other simple,
> clean, quick methods to achieve the same result, one that does not
> cause problems in assistive / alterntive browser technologies. ( I had
> read about this, so it's something I had on my ToDo list!)
IF one of the G team pop in, the most likely response wil lbe along
the lines of
as there is nothing untoward in what you are doing, I cannot see any
harm i nit, and it shouldn't cause a problem.
probably taking up around 60 words to say the above :D
I can see where yo uare comming from, and have much the same issues.
There was a post on here recently about links the same colour as the
BG until hovered/tabbed on (quick links and jump links) - and one of
the G folk cleared that as being 'safe'.
It's really to do with the 'intent'.
(sod knows how they figure that... unless they check the element, the
style, the content of the element, and whether it is applicalbe or not
etc.)
I'd strongly suggest another method (it really isn't that much more
styling, honest!), jsut to avoid the use of display:none and
visibility:hidden etc. (two words that are kind of risky ;))...
postion: relative; left: -9999px; is also out (as again, it's not
available with images off, css on!)
Use a script to show the image (whcih should also have alt text) the
and noscript to show the <h1>....</h1> which shoudl match the alt text
for the img tag.
Or any other content replacement script.
Or just place the image in between a pair of <h1> ..</h1> tags and the
h1 applies to the alt text.
> IF one of the G team pop in, the most likely response wil lbe along
> the lines of
> as there is nothing untoward in what you are doing, I cannot see any
> harm i nit, and it shouldn't cause a problem.
> probably taking up around 60 words to say the above :D
> I can see where yo uare comming from, and have much the same issues.
> There was a post on here recently about links the same colour as the
> BG until hovered/tabbed on (quick links and jump links) - and one of
> the G folk cleared that as being 'safe'.
> It's really to do with the 'intent'.
> (sod knows how they figure that... unless they check the element, the
> style, the content of the element, and whether it is applicalbe or not
> etc.)
> I'd strongly suggest another method (it really isn't that much more
> styling, honest!), jsut to avoid the use of display:none and
> visibility:hidden etc. (two words that are kind of risky ;))...
> postion: relative; left: -9999px; is also out (as again, it's not
> available with images off, css on!)
That's how I use it. Doesn't hurt anything as far as I can tell.
Of course I don't often use images this way in the first place.
Usually it would be maybe just for the logo.
Hi everyone
I thought I'd just pop in here and leave a short comment (as Bergy and
Wysz have left some great posts on this subject already).
Generally speaking, I'd leave it as simple as possible. There's no
need to create complicated (X)HTML and CSS structures if you just want
to replace an element with an image. There's no reason to be afraid of
using techniques like that if they provide a better experience for the
user and if your intent is not to deceive.
If your page has a nice & large graphical header with "company-name -
the best service-provider", then that text could be used as a heading
on that page. However, if the same graphic has an HTML header with
"company-name other-company competitor-name service1 service2 service3
service4 city1 city2 city3 city4 (etc)" then I think you'd agree that
they aren't really comparable ;-).
|
