A Very Light Black Hat Question

[craigmn3]

I was recently designing a site which had a very dark navigation side column created by a graphic,and I wanted to use white lettering for the hyperlinks . The rest of the page, and the page background was white and I didn't want to trip the spam sensors for hidden Links (white links with a white page background) both the page color and the background are on a style sheet and not the page itself.

So here are my questions

1. If used a colored (#34,34,34) background and then used a white graphic (a .jpg style) for the back ground picture would that solve the problem.

2. Could I color the table and then putting the dark graphic over it would the white lettering then be considered hidden?

3. How variant does the background have to be from the text. will #FE,FE,FE work on a #FF,FF,FF background?

4. Finally, in my mind this has to be purely a code thing right? The search engines robots aren't actually looking at the visual presentation of the site are they?

I am currently using a very light green on the hyperlinks, but it's just not as nice. My purpose here is not to find a new way to spam, but to avoid tripping the spam detectors with links that are not meant to be hidden.

[wige]

I am not suggesting you try this, but I have always considered the possibilities of using a php script to serve the search bots with a different CSS file than users to get around issues like this. In theory, it would be hard to detect, especially if you use the IP address/hostname of the bot rather than the user agent string (you know, to prevent your competitors from spotting the trick and reporting you).

As far as I know, though, setting a different background color in the table, with an appropriate color image on top of it (option 1) should prevent the navigation from tripping any spam filters. Also, remember that the search engines should have some tolerance for issues like this to take into account layout decisions of the many webmasters who don't even think about their navigation elements being seen as invisible text. Not saying its a huge threshold, but there is some give.

[mjtaylor]

Yes, I would opt for a colored background, overlayed with a white graphic. That's not black hat at all ... you are not trying to hide anything.

[thegypsy]

To be honest I wouldn't get worked up about it as there are many legitimate reasons (such as yers) for such actions. It highly doubt it would trip any spam bot issues....

Most of the folks that get nabbed by such tactics ( done nefariously) are from people reporting them...

In general, you'd need to satisfy more than one parameter to get any worries - such as Link SPamming, Site Scraping, KW Stuffing, CLoaking etc....

Simply doing what U speak of is unlikely to cause U much grief.

[Peter (IMC)]

Would you go 45 miles an hour on the highway instead of the allowed 55 just because you want to prove you don't speed?

My first impuls was wondering why you just don't color the background the color of the background image. But then I realized you could be using some shading effect that isn't possible in html.

The easiest way to absolutely make sure you´re not going even a tenth of a mile over 55 is by styling everything in css. Give the cell a class and define in it the font type, font color, and background image. The search engines will find all the information in the same place which already proves you´re not trying to hide anything.

I've used white font-types in menus on sites that besides the menu had a white background and never saw any problems.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Yes, I would opt for a colored background, overlayed with a white graphic. That's not black hat at all ... you are not trying to hide anything.

Isn't that like putting a sheet on the grass in a field and then put on top a layer of grass because it feels nicer than the sheet?

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by wige

I am not suggesting you try this, but I have always considered the possibilities of using a php script to serve the search bots with a different CSS file than users to get around issues like this. In theory, it would be hard to detect, especially if you use the IP address/hostname of the bot rather than the user agent string (you know, to prevent your competitors from spotting the trick and reporting you).

As far as I know, though, setting a different background color in the table, with an appropriate color image on top of it (option 1) should prevent the navigation from tripping any spam filters. Also, remember that the search engines should have some tolerance for issues like this to take into account layout decisions of the many webmasters who don't even think about their navigation elements being seen as invisible text. Not saying its a huge threshold, but there is some give.

Now that is a black hat technique. You could invert layers and show completely different things that way. Don't do this!!!

[weslinda]

Do you have a link to the page? Also, what happens to the page if someone has images turned off?

I don't think it's spam, but in other circles you could have issues.

[Feydakin]

I'm with Gypsy on this one.. As long as your site isn't simply covered with tactics that Goggle doesn't like you shouldn't have any issues..

And while wige's solution a valid one, unless you are very sure of your code and network tracking abilities I wouldn't go there at all..

[freelancedesigners.com]

If there are spam filters in the SEs that compare font colors to background colors and they expect that to find spam, they are smoking crack and they have too much time on their hands and not enough sense.

That couldnt pass the first sanity check in any respectable software development group.

I could probably find 10 ligitmate uses of matching font color to background color faster than 10 cases of hidden text.

IMHO

[nelsonez]

I agree with a number of others here. Without actually seeing the site you are referring to I don't see any issues. I wouldn't even consider it a "Very light Black Hat" issue.

You aren't trying to hide anything and there are thousands of sites that use white text and/or white links. I myself have used white textlinks overlayed on a dark background graphic many times and have never had a problem. White text by itself is not going to trip any filters and many times some of these issues that trip filters ultimately get a human review. There is also some speculation as to whether Google now has the ability to look for contrast differences in graphics probably much the same as OCR software.

If you are for example creating a horizontal navigation bar and you want to use a background graphic to put behind any white text you could also include a background color for the <TD> tags that is very close to the graphic. Since this background color would be hidden from the graphic it doesn't really matter what color it is as long as it is different from the text color. It is a simple thing to do just to be on the safe side.

[Steelchord]

Actually, there's a completely different issue here: What if your image doesn't load? This is quite common, especially if you have a lot of images to start with--but even if it's the only image on the page, it can still choke. I've seen the google logo vanish a couple times if network traffic on my end was heavy.

So the idea is, change the background color in the menu element behind the image... just in case your visitors find themselves presented with a little red x and no visible links.

White on white text will not trigger sandboxes. Nor will internal links. White-on-white external links, will, even if they're not necessarily spam... but you can still go years--or forever--before you get dunked for it, so it's a low risk.

Hope this helps.

[Steelchord]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

Isn't that like putting a sheet on the grass in a field and then put on top a layer of grass because it feels nicer than the sheet?

No, there are legitimate reasons for this technique. Scripted color changes, differentiating elements with a non-white page color, and because store-bought grass does feel nicer and you don't want to get the roots dirty.

D

[crossland]

The following site has a white page background, and a black column with white text links:

Ibanez Guitars

As far as I am aware, it hasn't been penalised and shouldn't be as it is not using any black hat techniques.

[tamecrow]

It's unlikely this would cause you any problems. Google is usually pretty good at telling the difference between legitimate menus and blatant keyword stuffing/hidden text.

Of course, in HTML 5 we'll be able to specifically state which elements are navigation menus

[Clarrie]

Originally Posted by craigmn3

I was recently designing a site which had a very dark navigation side column created by a graphic,and I wanted to use white lettering for the hyperlinks . The rest of the page, and the page background was white and I didn't want to trip the spam sensors for hidden Links (white links with a white page background) both the page color and the background are on a style sheet and not the page itself.

So here are my questions

1. If used a colored (#34,34,34) background and then used a white graphic (a .jpg style) for the back ground picture would that solve the problem.

2. Could I color the table and then putting the dark graphic over it would the white lettering then be considered hidden?

3. How variant does the background have to be from the text. will #FE,FE,FE work on a #FF,FF,FF background?

4. Finally, in my mind this has to be purely a code thing right? The search engines robots aren't actually looking at the visual presentation of the site are they?

I am currently using a very light green on the hyperlinks, but it's just not as nice. My purpose here is not to find a new way to spam, but to avoid tripping the spam detectors with links that are not meant to be hidden.

There are allegedly filters that are able to identify same (and very similar) colour text and backgrounds, so for that reason alone I would consider making the text colour different to the background. But there are also usability issues to consider here too - as one or two people have already mentioned, you need to accommodate those users who have graphics switched off or where there are problems with graphics failing to load.

My normal solution is to colour the background with a colour matched to the graphic and overlay this with background image. That way you've solved both problems at the same time.

[mawells]

I've used white text on a colored background for years and it has never posed a problem even if the overall page background is white. (The page background is white, but the section with the white menu links has a colored background.) No need to include a colored graphic unless you're going for some special effect. If a search bot can "see" that the page background is white, then it can "see" that this <div>, <layer> or <td> background is another color. So don't sweat it.

(I've been doing SEO since 1998 and this has never been a problem. The problem is white on white not white on a different colored section.)

[langsor]

Originally Posted by Clarrie

There are allegedly filters that are able to identify same (and very similar) colour text and backgrounds, so for that reason alone I would consider making the text colour different to the background. But there are also usability issues to consider here too - as one or two people have already mentioned, you need to accommodate those users who have graphics switched off or where there are problems with graphics failing to load.

My normal solution is to colour the background with a colour matched to the graphic and overlay this with background image. That way you've solved both problems at the same time.

<style type="text/css">

.navlink {
color:#FFF;
background: #000 url(my/black/link_bg.jpg);
}

</style>

What's so hard about this? This really seams like the most common sense approach and if Google can't figure out that there is no hidden text in this scenario then they better not be trying to figure it out at all...

Ciao

[NYChris]

I was at a convention a couple of years ago when a Google rep told me...
If the spider detects something that raises a flag, the URL is put in a bucket of URL's that will be manually reviewed (by a human... or maybe a pigeon). During this process, no penalty will be given.

Chris
NYC Real Estate Brokerage with Listings of Manhattan Apartments & Lofts for Rent & Sale

[emacs.wiki]

Nice views. thanks

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by emacs.wiki

Nice views. thanks

These spam posts won't get you and search engine advantage,.. and I doubt anybody around here will click your links.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

These spam posts won't get you and search engine advantage,.. and I doubt anybody around here will click your links.

I fully agree.