Hidden text conundrum

[Tim]

I've got a little conundrum!
I've made a two page site for a friend who runs boat trips. One of the pages is a gallery of ten photos that uses js 'show/hide layers'. Each photo layer has a one line description so nine layers have hidden text.

Under normal circumstances I would avoid hidden text like the plague but in this instance it is completely inane and mirrors the alt text. The last thing I want to do is get this site banned. Do you think it's safe to go public?

lymebayboattrips.co.uk/boat-trip-photos.htm

[chandrika]

I am also facing this question.

I want the sites main navigation menu to show/hide layers with deeper sub categories. And after what I have read here about hidden text, am not sure if this could pose the risk of the page being penalised for hidden text.

In this case it makes the site much more user friendly to have the menu broken down into sub menus.
But I dont want to do it if it runs the risk of a penalty.

I am guessing that google isnt going to penalise just for a menu using show/hide layers, but I dont know, how can they tell the difference between that and hidden text meant to spam their engine?

[JKomp]

Sorry, don't really get this one.
Is this 'hidden text' hidden by code or hid by being the same colour as the background. If it's a code thing, as long as its there for a legit reason, google will not penalise. If it's the other one then i would avoid it if at all possible.
As for what google can differentiate - they've got better accuity then people give them credit for.

[chandrika]

I am just reading the google quality guidelines and it does say clearly actually

Quality Guidelines - Specific recommendations:

* Avoid hidden text or hidden links.

So I guess that is the answer. But if anyone knows whether there are some cases of hidden links that are acceptable then please let me know.

I just want to be sure before I bin all the lovely js menus I was looking at.

[chandrika]

Originally Posted by JKomp

Sorry, don't really get this one.
Is this 'hidden text' hidden by code or hid by being the same colour as the background. If it's a code thing, as long as its there for a legit reason, google will not penalise. If it's the other one then i would avoid it if at all possible.
As for what google can differentiate - they've got better accuity then people give them credit for.

Sorry I didnt see you had answered.I didnt think anyone would be here on sunday morning.

Yes its legit code. Its for a css menu system. The show/hide functions would be in an external style sheet. And would just show a sub menu on mouseover of a main category.

Alot of sites use that kind of thing, including sites like Macromedia etc, so I think you are probably right to give google more credit on its ability to distinguish between hidden text that is legit or not.

[chandrika]

Here is an example of a page using this menu, its the ne at the top where you mouseover and the sub cats display below.

gadgetsgalaxydotcom/hiddenmenu/hiddenmenu.htm

(oh dont want spiders going there ..delinked the url)

[Tim]

Hi chandrika,
I too (like JKomp said), think we are probably safe. The amount of hidden text is very small but it is a concern when Google themselves spell it out so emphatically. There should really be exemptions for hidden text that is capable of being visible, like ours.

I have another somewhat experimental site (www.appleproject.org.uk) which has hundreds of hidden words. Again I used show/hide layers extensively to enable me to pack lots of information into each page and reduce scrolling. The site scores very well for all it's main keywords and has done so for over three years. If Google have got a detector like the one at http://tool.motoricerca.info/spam-detector/ it either doesn't work properly or is much more sophisticated. Let's hope the latter. I have seen Flash sites recently that blatantly use 'illegal' hidden text and still do well in Google. I read somewhere here that Google only bothers with individual cases of spam if it's reported.

There must be millions of sites with js/css menus which use the show/hide function and I've never heard of them suffering en masse. Perhaps the very existence of the 'show' function' counters the 'hide'?

Who knows?

[chandrika]

Originally Posted by Tim

perhaps the very existence of the 'show' function' counters the 'hide'?

Yes sure that sounds very probable.

[alextj]

Chandrika,
A little off-topic, but I really find those types of menu irritating, where you feel like you have to navigate a flash-game maze with your pointer, only to veer off just before you reach the right link and have to start all over again.
I don't think I'm the only one which the pointer set to fast out of impatience and, especially when I'm on the laptop, I prefer the sub-menu that drops down vertically - much more user-friendly in my opinion.
Alex

[Faglork]

When reading matt cutts' blog, you should read it complete and not just the sentences that might interest you. Matt was very outspoken about that hidden text issue, clearly indicating what is acceptable (for google) or not. One of his comments:

If you’re straight-out using CSS to hide text, don’t be surprised if that is called spam. I’m not saying that mouseovers or DHTML text or have-a-logo-but-also-have-text is spam; I answered that last one at a conference when I said “imagine how it would look to a visitor, a competitor, or someone checking out a spam report. If you show your company’s name and it’s Expo Markers instead of an Expo Markers logo, you should be fine. If the text you decide to show is ‘Expo Markers cheap online discount buy online Expo Markers sale …’ then I would be more cautious, because that can look bad.”

You can get a nice overview at
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv..._to_hide_text/

faglork

[Tim]

Thanks for the link Faglork,
I hadn't actually read that article. Chandrika and I were simply referring to the Webmaster Guidelines which clearly says 'Avoid hidden text or hidden links'. Perhaps they should revise that line.