Why is GOOGLE using alt tags in Site descriptions?

greeneagle · #1 (**permalink**) 06-14-2005, 12:09 PM

Why is GOOGLE using and favoring alt text in Site descriptions? You would think they would know that many headers are graphical in nature and that W3C requires alt text for every graphic to validate. What's their oversight, problem or issue there? They obviously support code validation.
Ken

daxesh · #2 (**permalink**) 06-15-2005, 05:52 AM

Google uses Alt tag in description or title whenever it fails for find content or title in theweb page.

tcampione · #3 (**permalink**) 06-15-2005, 07:53 AM

I think G has been experimenting a bit. Over the past 3 weeks or so, the page description for my main keyphrase search has bounced around from the typical body snippet to my meta description, and in one case even anchor text from a navigation link.

Why alt tag text is anyone's guess. It does seem bizarre. But, I guess your alt tags are kw rich enough to attract G's attention. :-)

I'm wondering, is the image also linked?

ADAM Web Design · #4 (**permalink**) 06-15-2005, 10:36 AM

I think you answered your own question, Ken.

If Google does favour and give preferential treatment to sites that adhere to W3C standards (something you've suggested in the past), then it stands to reason that they would also favour sites that employ the alt tag as part of their pic descriptions, since the alt tag is a required image attribute.

I'm not sure on this either, but I believe it also uses the alt tag for its image search to classify and organize its images. I've never really done any research on the issue because it's not an issue that affects me or my clients enough to care that much about it though.

wrmineo · #5 (**permalink**) 06-16-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daxesh

Google uses Alt tag in description or title whenever it fails for find content or title in theweb page.

I too have noticed this, especially when there is js or other script in the head.

For that matter, nearly all of my pages that have java, G has used the meta description.

Someone also reported recently that they say their site descrition verbatim as it appeared in DMOZ - maybe they are experimenting ... and inhaling?!

greeneagle · #6 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 04:41 AM

Content isn't the problem here!

I used separate graphics and validated describing (alt text) the graphics separately at the top of the page for the header. This stood to some "accessibility" reasoning (at the time).

With GOOGLE's recent push, promoting GOOGLE Image updating the best practice is to make headers one single graphic with alt text = Page Description.

Live and Learn

Ken

ADAM Web Design · #7 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 09:58 AM

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that in the place of an <h1> tag, a page header graphic with keyword-optimized text used to describe the image will have the same overall effect?

greeneagle · #8 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 10:13 AM

Adam,
Here is my new more GOOGLE friendly page format, as opposed to the old format.

Much more GOOGLE friendly since last 2 updates.

Ken

DMC_34 · #9 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Adam,
Here is my new more GOOGLE friendly page format, as opposed to the old format.

Much more GOOGLE friendly since last 2 updates.

Ken

Nice clean code, well done.

One thing I noticed was use of relative links in navigation. One of the statements from Google recently dealt with using absolute URLS in navigation. Not sure where I read it but I believe it came out when Google SiteMap came out.

DMC

ADAM Web Design · #10 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 12:39 PM

The second one has a typo in the graphic ("Pofessional Marketing...")

I'm still not sure what you're talking about. I see two pages with a similar menu, but very different content. If you're comparing two pages with the same content, then whatever you're referring to (which I still don't know) might be clearer.

In other words...what's your point?

greeneagle · #11 (**permalink**) 06-17-2005, 01:06 PM

Adam.....

The point is Google won't butcher the SERP listing on the new. It's designed to counter the changes that happened in the update prior Bourbon, promoting GOOGLE Image listings through alt tags harder than before.

When I first discovered it, I published an article that got picked up many places. Here's one for you:
http://www.bullmarketer.com/article.php?n=573

Just fixing that problem in the new updated fprmat, and wanted others who were experiencing the same to know what to do.

I have seen this issue affecting several Site's SERP descriptions.

That's all there is to it.

Ken

tcampione · #12 (**permalink**) 06-18-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greeneagle

I have seen this issue affecting several Site's SERP descriptions. That's all there is to it.

Ken,

This is a very interesting topic. I wonder if you would provide an example search or two for further study. The reasons I ask are:

1. Is alt txt as the page description an experiment of sorts and therefore potentially short lived?

2. Do we really know what conditions result in using alt txt as the description?

3. By making alt txt reader friendly we are sure to diminish kw density. Is this density a major factor in achieving this particular page's SERP rank to begin with?

Understanding these better would help many of us in deciding which tact to take.

/*tom*/