Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. Will these links hurt my google rating?
> Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a > couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse > over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in > no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. > Will these links hurt my google rating?
Thank you webado; The analysis tool you supplied the link for reported it as not being invisible text. To answer your question. The links that are set up this way are directly under visible links. Due to the way it is set up the user quickly finds out that they exist and how to use them. They list subcategories within the parent links and take the user to the same page as the parent link does.
> But how can anybody move the mouse over something they don't see?
> On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, exibitz wrote:
> > Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a > > couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse > > over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in > > no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. > > Will these links hurt my google rating?
> Thank you webado; > The analysis tool you supplied the link for reported it as not being > invisible text. > To answer your question. The links that are set up this way are > directly under visible links. Due to the way it is set up the user > quickly finds out that they exist and how to use them. They list > subcategories within the parent links and take the user to the same > page as the parent link does.
> On Jul 7, 11:14 am, webado wrote:
> > Hidden etxt and hidden links tend to bring penalties.
> > But how can anybody move the mouse over something they don't see?
> > On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, exibitz wrote:
> > > Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a > > > couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse > > > over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in > > > no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. > > > Will these links hurt my google rating?
Without having a link to where you are using this technique, it is hard to say.
There are a number of reasons that hiding links and/or text and/or any other elements on a page is acceptable but the most important thing is "intent" or at least what can be discerned of intent.
Take for example a cascading menu as compared to a long list of URLs used to try to game the search engines. The cascading menu would likely pass whereas the long list of URLs likely wouldn't.
> Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a > couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse > over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in > no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. > Will these links hurt my google rating?
While it seems clear that you're not attempting to manipulate your users' or search engines' behavior, I can imagine that the hidden link tactic you're employing may indeed push your site a bit towards the 'looks spammy' side of the spam/not-spam continuum in the eyes of our algorithms.
And indeed, there are many fine sites that have "hidden" links (in drop-down menus, via on-page triggered-actions, etc.).
So in essence I'm unable to offer either an absolute "don't do that!" or "sure, no problem," it's a call you'll have to make. But know that while it's safest to avoid hidden links in general, we do our best to take intent into account.
> While it seems clear that you're not attempting to manipulate your > users' or search engines' behavior, I can imagine that the hidden link > tactic you're employing may indeed push your site a bit towards the > 'looks spammy' side of the spam/not-spam continuum in the eyes of our > algorithms.
> And indeed, there are many fine sites that have "hidden" links (in > drop-down menus, via on-page triggered-actions, etc.).
> So in essence I'm unable to offer either an absolute "don't do that!" > or "sure, no problem," it's a call you'll have to make. But know that > while it's safest to avoid hidden links in general, we do our best to > take intent into account.
Whilst GOOGLE, quite rightly, wish to protect the integrity of their remarkable search engine -- they unfortunately fail to provide *exact* information on what precisely constitutes a site being penalized. Their excuse is, if professional spammers were alerted to their specific trickery, it would allow the spammer the opportunity of being even more devious. But I don't buy this strategy by GOOGLE. There are countless discussions about hidden links/text. Quite obviously if GOOGLE are able, with their sophisticated technical facilities, to identify what they perceive as hidden text/links, then they should provide their own validating tool that allows all of us to do the precisely the same thing.
>Quite obviously if GOOGLE are > able, with their sophisticated technical facilities, to identify what > they perceive as hidden text/links, then they should provide their own > validating tool that allows all of us to do the precisely the same > thing.
Possibly some more feedback is required, but, alas, it is true that if you had such a tool the spammers would grab it, create 50 different versions of their site with different variants of the 'spam page', and see which one came up clean. It would be the neatest gift ever - and we'd be riiiight back in the good old 'irrelevant porn / spam sites for every search' days of the mid 90's in a flash.
G does offer one solution though - the reconsideration request link in google webmaster tools - if you think you've inadvertantly been penalised for hidden text, all good - fix it, submit a reconsideration request. It's not perfect, but it does seem to work..
> > While it seems clear that you're not attempting to manipulate your > > users' or search engines' behavior, I can imagine that the hidden link > > tactic you're employing may indeed push your site a bit towards the > > 'looks spammy' side of the spam/not-spam continuum in the eyes of our > > algorithms.
> > And indeed, there are many fine sites that have "hidden" links (in > > drop-down menus, via on-page triggered-actions, etc.).
> > So in essence I'm unable to offer either an absolute "don't do that!" > > or "sure, no problem," it's a call you'll have to make. But know that > > while it's safest to avoid hidden links in general, we do our best to > > take intent into account.
> Whilst GOOGLE, quite rightly, wish to protect the integrity of their > remarkable search engine -- they unfortunately fail to provide *exact* > information on what precisely constitutes a site being penalized. > Their excuse is, if professional spammers were alerted to their > specific trickery, it would allow the spammer the opportunity of being > even more devious. > But I don't buy this strategy by GOOGLE. There are countless > discussions about hidden links/text. Quite obviously if GOOGLE are > able, with their sophisticated technical facilities, to identify what > they perceive as hidden text/links, then they should provide their own > validating tool that allows all of us to do the precisely the same > thing.
> G does offer one solution though - the reconsideration request link in > google webmaster tools - if you think you've inadvertantly been > penalised for hidden text, all good - fix it, submit a reconsideration > request. It's not perfect, but it does seem to work..
I don't think it is a satisfactory solution to ask for a reconsideration when you have to admit (reluctantly and untruthfully) that you haven't followed GOOGLE's guidelines before you can request a reinclusion/reconsideration. The system is clearly flawed. And I am of the opnion that GOOGLE can't, in any case, accurately identify hidden text. I remember sometime ago GOOGLE sent out polite mails advising site owners that they had spotted hidden text and would be penalized if they didn't correct it -- a client of mine (an estate agent) had 3 links on a page that were clearly visible from 3 feet away from the monitor -- the web designer had used a much darker shade for the font than the background colour and GOOGLE misinterpreted it as some kind of spam. No way were these hidden links! So if GOOGLE's robots can falsely be triggered by something as innocuous as this example then there must be many sites that are disadvantaged by their imperfect detection system. That's why they ought, in my opinion, to provide a tool which we can all use to validate a website for this particular problem (there is already a website that has a validation tool for detecting hidden text but they admit that it is not perfect).
Whilst I understand that there will always be concerns about professional spammers, I think the advantages of providing better information to webmasters, is not beyond the scope of a sophisticated outfit like GOOGLE. Cheers Leon
> I don't think it is a satisfactory solution to ask for a > reconsideration when you have to admit (reluctantly and untruthfully) > that you haven't followed GOOGLE's guidelines before you can request a > reinclusion/reconsideration.
It's arrogant and degrading. I wish Google would change it.
Like cass-hacks said, Google has no hard and fast rule against hidden links. Assuming there's nothing else wrong with your site, it won't be penalized or banned.
> Presently I am using hidden hyperlinks to lessen the clutter on a > couple of my website's pages. However when the user moves the mouse > over them the text shows up and is easily readable. My intention is in > no way to deceive anyone, just to create a page with less clutter. > Will these links hurt my google rating?
> Like cass-hacks said, Google has no hard and fast rule against hidden > links. Assuming there's nothing else wrong with your site, it won't be > penalized or banned.
They most certainly do have 'rules' and, as I have already indicated, these rules are ineffectual because they make erroneous assumptions that can result in the unfair penalization of a website.
There has to be a test for visibility and that's as good as it gets. Hiding text and links has been the blackhat method of choice for a long time.
Sounds like it migth have been due to improper use of css which will result is text being invisible when used on an image background without the acutal background color having been set to a contrasting color. Try turning off images, can you still see it?
> > Like cass-hacks said, Google has no hard and fast rule against hidden > > links. Assuming there's nothing else wrong with your site, it won't be > > penalized or banned.
> They most certainly do have 'rules' and, as I have already indicated, > these rules are ineffectual because they make erroneous assumptions > that can result in the unfair penalization of a website.
> There has to be a test for visibility and that's as good as it gets. > Hiding text and links has been the blackhat method of choice for a > long time.
Then let GOOGLE share that 'flawed' test facility with all of us so that a webmaster, with transparent honesty, like exibitz can avoid being clobbered by GOOGLE's shortcomings.
> > There has to be a test for visibility and that's as good as it gets. > > Hiding text and links has been the blackhat method of choice for a > > long time.
> Then let GOOGLE share that 'flawed' test facility with all of us so > that a webmaster, with transparent honesty, like exibitz can avoid > being clobbered by GOOGLE's shortcomings.
