Lack of Google relevance post Jagger

[dburdon]

In relation to this issue I carried out an analysis of Google searches vs. Yahoo/MSN searches for the weeks prior and post the Jagger update.

My findings across 14 campaigns showed a decline in Google's share of searches of 2.2%. Not much - and probably not significant even for the categories I cover. See:
http://webproworld.com/viewtopic.php...=asc&&start=25

However, I thought I would investigate further. What I've done is look at the two days 25/26th October and 11/12th October. Both these sets of data are clearly outside the turbulence of the Jagger 1 update time zone. What I've found is an even bigger fall in Google's share of searches. A 6% decline!!! Much of the fall was concentrated in one category - a B2B campaign.

I checked the category comparing Google's results with Yahoo's. I couldn't believe the complete rubbish in the Google SERPs. The search was a key term used in the Exhibitions (Trade shows) industry. But the Google results were 75% irrelevant.

However, almost subconsciously I was drawn to the Adwords fields around the edge of the SERPs pages. These were stuffed with relevant sites.

Now its a long shot. But do you suppose that Google have worked out that if the organic SERPs are poor, more searchers will click on the Adwords links? I'm kinda suspicious.

Now, given the smartness of the Google mathematicians they've probably already anticipated that this deterioration in relevance (quality) will lead to more savvy searchers switching over to Yahoo and MSN.

Any takers that the algos may need to change back.

[DMC_34]

We have seen a drop in Google visitors from organic listings Since Joker 1. But a significant increase in Adwords costs. Near 30% increase in cost.

I agree the relevancy is not near as good as it was before but I believe the search engines ride popularity wave which is based on media hype and marketing. I do not believe relevance of organic results play a big factor in it. You will be surpirsed when we survey our visitors, most will say MSN but I believe most do not have a clue as to which search engine or browser they use.

In the end its a popularity vote and media hype rather than relevant organic results for most people. Personally I think MSN results are the best of three yet according to suspicious Neilson Ratings they are not even close to the other two.

I agree Adwords marketing calls. Garbage in the SERP's, especially the lose of small business, leads to more adword clicks. Say "Do no evil" to that. Its not evil, its Corporate revenue.

DMC

[dburdon]

DMC,

I guesss the Adwords cost increase could be as a function of your organic entry disappearing from the top SERPs. If you do as I do, that is optimise for the same keyword terms as you buy pay per click, you run the risk of increasing expenditure.

Maybe the Google people are smarter than we all thought.

However, if the ultimate impact is that Google traffic falls - due to lack of relevance - then they would have shot themselves in the foot.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Now its a long shot. But do you suppose that Google have worked out that if the organic SERPs are poor, more searchers will click on the Adwords links? I'm kinda suspicious.

Now, given the smartness of the Google mathematicians they've probably already anticipated that this deterioration in relevance (quality) will lead to more savvy searchers switching over to Yahoo and MSN.

Any takers that the algos may need to change back.

I don't think it's a long shot. I think that is exactly what they did. I wrote an article on my take of this:

http://www.drtandem.com/Web-Site-Design-Topic.htm

[aaron2005]

For all the areas I would like to occupy in the future (in google) the results are now very relevant. The problem is, how do you compete with, wiki, about.com, .edu, and others?

You can convince yourself anything but I believe it has changed, the days of people gaming to get big results are over, there is now one correct way to do things. If you are selling something it is much harder for you now in the free serps. If you offer an informational page that compliments your "for profit" site then you have a chance, but not against wiki, about.com, .edu and others that just will not go away, they are established with huge pr power and occupy many places.

My only hope is the belief that website age is the factor keeping my sites back, I have informational sites not pointing at products (well I have one page pointing at my one product) BUT I want to work for Adsense dollars. I provide quality information in return for a few bucks a day, I believe this relationship can be established.

[kgun]

In the end its a popularity vote and media hype rather than relevant organic results for most people. Personally I think MSN results are the best of three yet according to suspicious Neilson Ratings they are not even close to the other two.

Try the following searches on different SE's:

keyword spam site:webproworld.com

"keyword spam" site:webproworld.com

[greeneagle]

When I get really tired after 24-30 hr days... Everything I do is beyond positive ROI and I know it's time to sleep.

Ken

[dburdon]

Dr. T,

I've added a link to your story from my blog:

http://uksearch.blogspot.com/

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Dr. T,

I've added a link to your story from my blog:

http://uksearch.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Dburdon. I wouldn't say that I'm "leading the charge," but I like the blog. Also like the anchor text you chose.

[dburdon]

Dr. T,

maybe I should suggest some other military metaphors for tackling Big G.

How about a poem or two:

http://eserver.org/poetry/light-brigade.html

David B

[DMC_34]

dburdon,

We optimize for the same organically as we do PPC's. I have noticed two major differences this year in Google.

1. They implemented a new system in Adwords to reinstate disabled or unstable keywords back into the listings by increasing your bids. This has caused a increase in adword revenue simply because more competition who cant optimize PPC's are now in the running more often. In the end it causes an increase in revenue for Google

2. Ridiculous Joker update push more garbage to the top and some of the results are major corporations, which for the most couldnt care less about organics. This causes more smaller business(adwords main target) to start campaigns. In the end it causes an increase in revenue for Google

Before anyone gets me wrong. Google is doing exactly what most large corporations do. Make revenue and there is nothing wrong with it. Just as Microsoft does and gets criticized for monoplies all the time. My problem comes into when I most are unwilling to accept that Google is no longer the noble ones or shells out the "For the people or For the better of the industry" crap I hear so often.

Time for some to wake up and realize that Google is no longer the noble Microsoft killers people friendly saints they are made out to be.

Funny how most of the articles are criticizing Microsoft and pumping Google but I have yet to read of an article here about just how suspicious this years pre holiday season updates from Google are.

DMC

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by DMC_34

Google is doing exactly what most large corporations do. Make revenue and there is nothing wrong with it. Just as Microsoft does and gets criticized for monoplies all the time. My problem comes into when I most are unwilling to accept that Google is no longer the noble ones or shells out the "For the people or For the better of the industry" crap I hear so often.

Very good point. That's why I call it "Google's Gamble." They are betting that their reputation will support the schlock they are now purporting to be "relevant" results.

The time of year is no coincidence. They know that on-line retailers need traffic to make sales. It's not the Grinch who stole Christmas, it's Google, for two years in a row!

[kgun]

it is wors to rank sites. It is easy for to sites, difficult for 10 billions. If your index is bigger than others, you will have absoulutely more spam sites. During this update, Google is paying great attention to spam according to GoogleGuy posting at WMW.

1. The title tag is most important for Google. The other tags are irrelevant. The other tags may be important for other engines and webmasteres of portals and directories.

2. Build linking over time. H

[dburdon]

What if a large number of people started referring to Google as "paid advertising specialist" and another search engine as the "leading organic search engine"?

Essentially - as we say in the UK - the penny has dropped. Google is a money making machine. The search results are just a sideline to attract naive eyeballs. Including ourselves.

[risk]

Now its a long shot. But do you suppose that Google have worked out that if the organic SERPs are poor, more searchers will click on the Adwords links? I'm kinda suspicious.

Hi
Have you noticed how none of the top ranked sites on any major keyword search on Google have Google adsense running on them. Most of them did prior to the recent updates. Do the same search on MSN, yahoo and you'll find sites running adsense
When a top ranking PR 7 site of mine running adsense on informational pages got banned during this update, I was thinking that google had shot itself in the foot by removing a site that made money for google - trouble is it still does make money for google as its still at the top of the rankings for Yahoo and MSN - while google now cleans up for itself at home!!

MY only way to hit back is to drop adsense and leave google to wallow in its big corporation and totally irrelevant results

Risk

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by risk

Now its a long shot. But do you suppose that Google have worked out that if the organic SERPs are poor, more searchers will click on the Adwords links? I'm kinda suspicious.

Hi
Have you noticed how none of the top ranked sites on any major keyword search on Google have Google adsense running on them. Most of them did prior to the recent updates. Do the same search on MSN, yahoo and you'll find sites running adsense
When a top ranking PR 7 site of mine running adsense on informational pages got banned during this update, I was thinking that google had shot itself in the foot by removing a site that made money for google - trouble is it still does make money for google as its still at the top of the rankings for Yahoo and MSN - while google now cleans up for itself at home!!

MY only way to hit back is to drop adsense and leave google to wallow in its big corporation and totally irrelevant results

Risk

Yes,

I have a client running AdSense on a site that is either #1 or 2 on both Yahoo and MSN, for a generic, but popular two-word search term, yet does not appear on Google.

Another client, after losing 20 places (from 3 to 23) improved to 17 for another very popular and generic two-word term. They then instituted AdWords and immediately fell to 19.

By the way, they said their AdWords campaign has produced zero results in the form of sales conversion and very little in the way of traffic. They said their on-line portion of business was humming right along until this Google debacle.

I am sorry to say, and I thought I never would, but Google sucks.

[dburdon]

Dr. T,
I'm covering both bases be reinstituting an adwords campaign for many of the words I target organically. What's interesting is that the Adwords cost per click seem to have gone up.

I agree that Adwords conversion tends to be lower than organic.

[kgun]

What if a large number of people started referring to Google as "paid advertising specialist" and another search engine as the "leading organic search engine"?

Which search engine should that be? I do not se another on the horizon, but there are some just below.

Personal view: Google is
- the paid advertising specialist and
- the leading organic search engine.

[DrTandem1]

[quote="kgunPersonal view: Google is
- the paid advertising specialist and
- the leading organic search engine.[/quote]

Yes, those are both two true statements. However, it was not always the leading organic search engine and I see it degrading very quickly to number two or three. Here's why:

1)Google is hurting itself with poor organic results.
2)Yahoo and MSN organic results are currently far superior
3)Yahoo is currently in partnership with SBC, the largest number of DSL subscribers of any telecom (6+ MILLION) about to become AT&T with a huge world-wide fiber network
4)Google's poor ROI for their advertising will eventually show up on their bottom line as they lose market share
5)A major class-action lawsuit has been filed against Google by the Authors Guild for massive copyright infringement

Add all of that, when web professionals start poo-pooing Google, they are finished. Interesting how a bottom line can affect a company's behavior. Google, spelled G-R-I-N-C-H.

[aaron2005]

DrTandem1 ~ You have to be honest here and look deep inside I believe, just last week I changed one thing on a website and it went from jagger1 position #150 to #40 for it's keyword. You know what was holding me back? Was it Google? Nope, it was myself, I made the mistake of making a directory on a sunbdomain and blog and pointed a "site wide" navabar (.php) back to the main index. Google said, bad boy.

I guess even though my sites are VERY young and all not seeing any real traffic after this last update, I have been humbled, BUT I also believe in admiting my failures. I am now back in my Zen place were all the answers are again right at my fingertips because I hold no anger once again.

I am not saying you or anyone else is doing this but if you look closely at what you are doing I bet you can remove some "spam" and rise up in Google. Google can kick your ass but it is always ready to forgive.

Google's results are VERY relevant now, the question is, why are you not relevant anymore? Find out and do what it takes right?

Could you give me an example of a page that you see as being treated like trash? One of yours or someone elses?

Thanks,

-Aaron

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by aaron2005

DrTandem1 ~ You have to be honest here and look deep inside I believe, just last week I changed one thing on a website and it went from jagger1 position #150 to #40 for it's keyword. You know what was holding me back? Was it Google? Nope, it was myself, I made the mistake of making a directory on a sunbdomain and blog and pointed a "site wide" navabar (.php) back to the main index. Google said, bad boy.

I guess even though my sites are VERY young and all not seeing any real traffic after this last update, I have been humbled, BUT I also believe in admiting my failures. I am now back in my Zen place were all the answers are again right at my fingertips because I hold no anger once again.

I am not saying you or anyone else is doing this but if you look closely at what you are doing I bet you can remove some "spam" and rise up in Google. Google can kick your ass but it is always ready to forgive.

Google's results are VERY relevant now, the question is, why are you not relevant anymore? Find out and do what it takes right?

Could you give me an example of a page that you see as being treated like trash? One of yours or someone elses?

Thanks,

-Aaron

Aaron, as my business does not usually come from the internet, I don't rely on the SERPs. I am, however, interested in them from a client's perspective. Since I'm located in a relatively small town with a unique name, Encinitas, you would think it would be easily found on Google. It was until just recently. It is still found at the top of MSN and Yahoo among others.

I think Google didn't like my blog, which I recently removed to see what would happen. Since you don't list your site nor mention the specific keyword you changed, I can't offer a suggestion as to exactly what caused your site to be bumped up in the SERPs. You also don't mention whether the change was simply the word you entered as a search term or whether you added it to your site. Too often people change something on their site and think that they caused the change in the SERPs.

As to your question of what I do or don't do on my site, I can assure you I don't spam and am not part of a linking scheme and I don't offer SEO beyond removing barriers such as frames, missing title tags, missing alternative text and other validation issues.

This has happened before at the same time of year with Google. They are simply trying to motivate people to advertise by removing them from the SERPs. At the same time, the piss-poor results are an attempt to get searchers to click on their PPC scam.

If anyone is running a scam, it's Google. I disagree with you on the relevancy of their SERPs for most searches. You may search Google out of habit or convenience (toolbar), but I think you'd be surprised by the excellent sites that you won't find in Google.

By the way, some of the sites I administer were not affected by this update. Others were affected only for certain keywords. No, I don't hold any anger towards Google, only the observation that as a search engine they are degrading and relative to their rivals their results suck.

No Google doesn't "forgive" anyone. They are simply another internet bully. It is you that has forgiven them. I don't blame them for anything beyond their callous disregard for the havoc they wreak upon small businesses at this time of year. So, when they ask for my advertising dollars or a client asks me, if they should use Google, I tell them "no."

Too many people are dependent upon SERPs for their internet livelihood. I have advised in the past that people use traditional advertising, not "message-in-a-bottle" schemes such as organic SERPs or even PPC.

PPC is like standing on a street corner with one dollar bills that have "Call me" written on them.

Now, you have to realize, Aaron, that this site is based largely upon those with SEO firms and their business is directly related to the positioning of sites in the SERPs, especially Google's. So, my message of traditional advertising will not be heeded by them, as it is not in their best interests to have clients go elsewhere with their money.

At the same time, Google has rendered SEO irrelevant with regards to its search engine. Google will soon be known as nothing more than a search-driven Yellow Pages. You don't pay, you don't play.

To me, Google is like McDonald's with its long lines, poor customer service and empty of nutritional value. I wonder why they line up for the abuse. Then again, eat S@$t, billions of flies can't be wrong.

[aaron2005]

Ok then, thanks for clarifying but I am not ready to write Google off as being impossible to get good results from. Give me two weeks to a month and maybe I will agree with you but I am seeing changes whenever I get an idea and tweak my websites a bit, the thing that sucks this could take another year for me to figure out, is this SEO stuff never ending?

The 3 pages of sites above me (or should I say replaced me) in google look like they don't have adsense on them, maybe I should remove adsense, very strange I agree but .edu, wiki and jerrys backyard olympics are winning the game. Looks like they have separated business from educational websites and you could be correct it makes you guys pay PPC!

[google junky]

DrTandem1,


I actually read every word of that long thing. That was way too perfect and well said.
It really is a shame that WPW doent have a great quotes or quote of the day section. This stuff would be king on the list.

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

PPC is like standing on a street corner with one dollar bills that have "Call me" written on them.

Google will soon be known as nothing more than a search-driven Yellow Pages. You don't pay, you don't play.

To me, Google is like McDonald's with its long lines, poor customer service and empty of nutritional value. I wonder why they line up for the abuse. Then again, eat S@$t, billions of flies can't be wrong.

Good luck in all you do DrTandem,
Google Junky

[kgun]

You should know the difference between a batch-based search engine and an incrementally-updated search engine.

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=55223

A batch based will be more stable, but will it be better? Note that Google is made for surfers and not for webmasters.

3. Related WPW post.
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...hlight=#255300

Quote from my post in that thread.
Think about the following:

Ten people sit around a table with sorted cards. Then they are given 100 new cards that shall be put into the existing hands (index) and then merged to an overall sorted (ranked) hand. And some cards (broken / dead links) shall even be thrown away.

Yes, even with dozens of datacenters across the earth, thousands of computers and superfast connection that replication is not an easy task.

If you prefer a static index, we talk about different things.

Don't panic before the (card) shuffeling is over. Trying to be smart while that shuffeling is taking place, may do more harm than good.

Speculating about which SE has the best shuffeling algorithm is in my view vaste of time. Especially while the shuffeling are taking place.

Note: Shuffeling algorithm NE Ranking algorithm.


Related link:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...asc&&start=125

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by kgun

Note that Google is made for surfers and not for webmasters.

If that is true, then why aren't Google "surfers" allowed to see the most current new sites?

Google is no longer for surfers and was never for webmasters. Google is for making the quick buck, pure and simple. This will be its demise, unless it gets back on course.

To make the quick buck, they needed to remove the defender and neutralize SEO. Their organic listings are in direct competition with their sponsored listings. This is a major conflict of interest. It was resolved by making the SERPs look like public television (which few watch) and only allow the tastier topics appear, if they pay for a spot.

Being that the internet is more of the Wild West with a spirit of freedom, I think you can logically expect to see searchers move away from Google much as they scrambled for pop-up blockers.

[kgun]

If that is true, then why aren't Google "surfers" allowed to see the most current new sites?

Perhaps because Jagger2 has just started and Jagger3 is under way. It is not "fair in my opionion" to rate Google during major updates. That is the price we as surfers pay for incremental updating of the index / register.

Rate it some weeks after Jagger3 is finished.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by kgun

If that is true, then why aren't Google "surfers" allowed to see the most current new sites?

Perhaps because Jagger2 has just started and Jagger3 is under way. It is not "fair in my opionion" to rate Google during major updates. That is the price we as surfers pay for incremental updating of the index / register.

Rate it some weeks after Jagger3 is finished.

No, I'm talking about even before the update, new sites aren't found for months.

[kgun]

No, I'm talking about even before the update, new sites aren't found for months.

Not
1. Indexed?
2. Found on the top of the SERP's.
3. Found at all.

Generally found later on Google than on other SE's?

Personally, I prefer Google for free search.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by kgun

No, I'm talking about even before the update, new sites aren't found for months.

Not
1. Indexed?
2. Found on the top of the SERP's.
3. Found at all.

Generally found later on Google than on other SE's?

Personally, I prefer Google for free search.

Not found by your average searcher, which is all that matters.

[aaron2005]

Wise ol' kgun - yes indeed, logic without emotion and a "we will see when it is done" attitude is righteous. ;)

I think people just need to vent in here including myself, the current results look scary, they go like this for my keywords:

Page #1 of Google:

about.com
wiki
a few old geocities pages (chump change)
.edu
.org
(and that goes on for 4 pages)

See a pattern? The sites without massive PR power appear to have been hand picked and are few, so how does a person like myself who was not hand picked get in? That scares me and makes me emotional at times, there is no way I could compete with that massive spammer about.com and the growing wiki that is literally owning the SERPS.

I also notice that the sites ranking above me have single pages on the subject that I dedicated an entire website to, how lame is that? It's like throwing what I have done in the trash.

Yes indeed, we will see BUT after all this settles and I do not see results, I am going to change color from white to black if that is the only way to get in the exclusive elistist SERPS. I see exactly how the others do it and have reported them but they still are #1 for literally everything they do, this tells me that black tactics get results, anyone know where I can learn about this stuff? I want to be ready if I have to game to play.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by aaron2005

I see exactly how the others do it and have reported them but they still are #1 for literally everything they do, this tells me that black tactics get results, anyone know where I can learn about this stuff? I want to be ready if I have to game to play.

Yes... usually a bar late at night or in IRC. Nobody really talks about black hat openly, as they would easily know how to turn the other in when they are working towards the same keywords. Everything is communicated anonymous via IRC or once lips get loosened after a few beers.

If you're looking at on-page black hat stuff, who says that's what makes the page rank where it does. It could be that the spam tactics (white on white, etc.) are being discounted but the page still comes in at the top for that phrase. Just because a site spams doesn't mean it is totally worthless. If the visible text is still the most relevant stuff when off-page factors get added, then it will still rank up top.

Brian.

[dburdon]

But surely if we believe Google, these sites should be banned or at least demoted in the rankings. If Google's supposed spam filters can't pick up the black hat 101 practices of top ranking sites, what's their worth?

Or are large PPC accounts allowed to get away with more liberal practises?

[brian.mark]

What I've gathered at conferences is that they just discount the spam. In many instances, that'll drop the page out of the SERPs, but a site with other worth will remain where it was at even without those elements counting. Sort of makes one wonder why they did that in the first place, but it happens quite often according to the sources at the conferences.

Sites with less relevance end up dropping out of the SERPs (off-page relevance), so smaller players see bigger drops than the big guys. It's favoritism, but in a somewhat democratic manner.

Brian.

[kgun]

spam Google by using meta tags, since the tags is not important for Google.

Link spam is still possible, I think, but there are now perhaps more people reporting link spam, since it seems that Google have foccused on spam during this update.

Content spam, aside from copies, what is that?

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by kgun

Content spam, aside from copies, what is that?

Hidden text is the most obvious. NOSCRIPT text can easily be another. If you read Matt Cutt's blog, he makes reference to the NOSCRIPT tag in one of his posts. I think they are looking at that quite a bit. I've seen the software he was making reference to when it had a comment about add in your h1 keywords here and I laughed then. I laughed even more when Matt posted about that tactic. It seems that many spammers aren't very sophisticated, though.

Another form of content spam would be cloaking. One could potentially provide different content to the bots just for ranking while showing people a useful page. Whatever way you slice it, that would be content related spam.

Brian.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by brian.mark

Hidden text is the most obvious. NOSCRIPT text can easily be another. If you read Matt Cutt's blog, he makes reference to the NOSCRIPT tag in one of his posts. I think they are looking at that quite a bit. I've seen the software he was making reference to when it had a comment about add in your h1 keywords here and I laughed then. I laughed even more when Matt posted about that tactic. It seems that many spammers aren't very sophisticated, though.

Another form of content spam would be cloaking. One could potentially provide different content to the bots just for ranking while showing people a useful page. Whatever way you slice it, that would be content related spam.

Brian.

Alt attribute spamming would be another example. Attaching KW rich alt descriptions to graphics or decorations. Using tiny 1x1 unseeable images with KW laden alt descriptions would be another.

Dave

[kgun]

Content spam, aside from copies, what is that?

To be more precise, I meant content.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by kgun

Content spam, aside from copies, what is that?

To be more precise, I meant content.

Guess that depends on how you define content. If it's in the code is it content?

Dave

[kgun]

Guess that depends on how you define content. If it's in the code is it content?

Depends on how you define code :-)

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by kgun

Guess that depends on how you define content. If it's in the code is it content?

Depends on how you define code :-)

Anything that the web server returns would be code. Content is normally anything within the code. That's the definition we get at Search Engine Stragegies, so that's what I run with.

Brian.

[kgun]

Great
Content is normally anything within the code.

But anything?

1. What is content for dmoz?
2. What is content for you?
3. What is unique content?
4. What is content for a SE?
5. What is not content for a SE?

You do not need to answer?

My definition of (web) content:
1. Text.
2. Media - audio, video, graphics, links etc.
within code.

Malevich white square, http://www.cavant-garde.com/articles/emerge.shtml and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._n6260536/pg_2 is absolutely content for me, and I should like to have the painting.

White on white or black on black may be art in real life, so there is at least one difference between digital reality and reality.

Predicition: In 2100 white on white and black on black may also be art in the digital (virtual) reality.

What about business.tv, http://www.tv/en-def-c817a0c2ff91/en...tml?accepts=no without content, aside a white index page? business.tv is an available premium name! $ 1,000,000.00 / year

There are different definitions of value:
E.g. price > 0.

[dburdon]

Crankydave,

when does an alt text description become spam? Surely if an image is relevant it will most likely have a description that is relevant. That description is most likely to contain keywords.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Crankydave,

when does an alt text description become spam? Surely if an image is relevant it will most likely have a description that is relevant. That description is most likely to contain keywords.

Let's say I create a dozen or so 1x1 images (you can't see them) and spread them throughout my "Worlds Greatest Widgets" web site, and I give them all this alt description...

"Buy the Worlds Greatest Widgets at the Worlds Greatest Widgets website"

Or perhaps I'm using blue dots for bullet points all over my page and I use the same description I list above, as the alt description for every one of those blue dots.

This is alt spamming.

Dave

[nipplecharms1]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Crankydave,

when does an alt text description become spam? Surely if an image is relevant it will most likely have a description that is relevant. That description is most likely to contain keywords.

Ok, now I am officially scared yet again.

I always thought that alt tags were ok; they were a white hat (giddy up) technique.

Is that no longer true? I have loads of pictures on my site representing all of our jewelry. (Don’t’ go there looking for nakedness, its not there. Jeez…) Most have our key words in them. Not packed mind you, but if I have 7 pictures on a body jewelry page, each image has AT LEAST the word body jewelry in the alt tag somewhere.

WAITRESS! Get over here.

So am I wong wabbit?

Comments welcome.

Michael

[DrTandem1]

Time for a dose of common sense regarding content. Content is anything that a human visitor can see and hear. Not all content can be "seen" by robots, such as images. Therefore, alt attributes are used for the visually impaired, those with super-slow connections, broken images and those who surf with images disabled. Some browsers (i.e. Firefox) will not display alt attributes, at least in their default configurations.

Being that alt attributes are made up of text, they can be indexed. If someone was to add descriptive alt text to 1x1 transparent spacer GIFs, they could be indexed. That doesn't mean that they will be indexed, just that it is possible.

It is therefore logical to assume that they may be ignored, filtered by size, totally indexed, etc. Suppose that they are indexed just as textual content. It would then be reasonable to assume that spam-counters would tally the terms used in the alt attributes and therefore be subject to consequences.

Be clear, I am not advocating using alt attributes for bullets, spaces, graphical horizontal rules, etc. Personally, I use alt="" for such images to pass validation. So, I would recommend using common sense and use alt attributes that accurately describe images that are important to the subject of the content, not the layout.

[kgun]

Excellent.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by nipplecharms1

Ok, now I am officially scared yet again.

I always thought that alt tags were ok; they were a white hat (giddy up) technique.

Is that no longer true? I have loads of pictures on my site representing all of our jewelry. (Don’t’ go there looking for nakedness, its not there. Jeez…) Most have our key words in them. Not packed mind you, but if I have 7 pictures on a body jewelry page, each image has AT LEAST the word body jewelry in the alt tag somewhere.

WAITRESS! Get over here.

So am I wong wabbit?

Comments welcome.

Michael

The alt attribute should accurately describe the image. In the event a browser cannot display an image or a visitor cannot see the image because of an impairment, the alt description provides a text alternative to the image.

Dave