The Hidding Content using CSS thing?

[inertia]

What do people think about the hidden content using CSS thing? I have started work on a new client today and their site (which is performing well, not amazingly but ok) has quite a bit of css hidden content. The main menu is flash but they have hidden an html one behind it. They have text within images but they have hidden the actual text as well.

Ive read this SEO Mistakes: Unwise comments - which answers nothing. Any other thoughts? Should i get rid of it? Its not that bad really is it?

[chiron]

Last client I saw try that sort of general idea did a weaker job of it, using CSS in more of a white-on-white (duh) sort of fashion, and ended up spending 30-40 days in the Google ban box.

This might not get picked up automatically, but if it were to get reported, could you defend it? Doubtful based on how I am conceiving the code you describe.

Answer to the "should you remove" I will rephrase as "would I remove" where the answer there is a resounding yes, chop it and do things properly.

[Feydakin]

It's more a matter of intent.. If the flash navigation is removed will the CSS navigation be visible and able to be used to move around the site?? Or is it being used simply to trick the search engines??

BTW, I'd seriously consider the need for flash navigation..

[deepsand]

You may want to look to the thread at Google and Cloaking

[iany]

Originally Posted by inertia

The main menu is flash but they have hidden an html one behind it. They have text within images but they have hidden the actual text as well.

Not quite sure what the issue is here. Making Flash visible or using black hat techniques with CSS. As for making an html version of Flash, that was standard practice and not considered black hat. Now it is probably better to use the SWFobject method. See swfobject - Google Code.

When you say that they have hidden the text behind the images, I don't really see an issue there as this is also an accessibility issue. There are also folks who will disable images so the text will make the site more meaningful. One way to decide if ok. Disable the CSS and see how it looks.

One thought to ponder, given the thousands of sites that use so called black hat techniques and don't appear to be sand boxed and have healthy Google page rankings do we get too hung up on what might or might not be construed to be wron?. If you check on the highest ranking SEO sites, you might be surprised how many use <no script> or "invisible" text techniques.

Ian

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by iany

One thought to ponder, given the thousands of sites that use so called black hat techniques and don't appear to be sand boxed and have healthy Google page rankings do we get too hung up on what might or might not be construed to be wron?. If you check on the highest ranking SEO sites, you might be surprised how many use <no script> or "invisible" text techniques.

Ian

As an answer to your question... IMO most definitely.

There's a difference between using <noscript> and "invisible". The former depends upon how it's used. The latter is generally considered "wrong".

Dave

[malice95]

We got a 30 day slap for using hidden text once.. (I thought it would be good for lynx
browsers) Anyway.. You might get away with the CSS menu if the menu names are
the same as the flash one.. Google is starting to parse flash so they might see a difference.

The text in images is okay.. but hidding the same text is a big nono.. If the search
bot is seeing you hiding text you will get slapped down. We were actually delisted
and it took quite a while after that to regain any trust (ranking) with google.

Mike

[Terry Van Horne]

I have made a killing by refusing to work with what works today, instead going for what will always work. IMO, and especially since there is hidden text that looks like it can't be displayed... this is way too risky to charge for. I saw a site dive where I put text in a layer that a button could be used to display the text instead of the Image. IMO, this is a risk a good SEO removes knowing the risk to return is too high. If caught it takes sometimes months to return. Remember that as you rise those below always rat because that's how they stay on the first page. So the risk increases dramatically when you reach your ranking goal.

[Webnauts]

If you don't get the answer you are looking for here Hidden text and links - Webmaster Help Center we move deeper.

[Webnauts]

I think all answers to your questions may be found in my post here: Google and Cloaking

[davidweb]

Google can easily detect links within any flash file ( unless and until it is embedded deep within the actionscript).

As far as menu is concerned, if your client is using the same menu items as given in CSS then it cannot be termed as a trick.

It can be a way of your client to present SEO friendly link menu to search engines especially Yahoo which is still weak when it comes to crawling flash files.

If the hidden menu is completely different from what you see in the CSS, then it can be a "Little Bit of Black Hat". However if the hidden menu links are few and are from the website itself then search engines wont give a damn to it.

If the menu items are in tune of 50-100, then you will see raised eyebrows by both Google/Yahoo.

As far as content is concerned, there are several million websites using <div> tags to display TABBED menu content. On several occasions it is observed that web designers make some mistake to properly close TAGS. Therefore it cannot be termed as a SPAM. However in the current scenerio search engines do not like pages overloaded with targeted keywords.

You should ask your client why this hidden text has been included. Your hidden text can get reported by some competitor and you will be at the receiving end of penalty. It is always wise to tell your client exact issues related to the hidden text. Simply ask your client to sort this issue. I am sure it will help him to score higher rankings on search engines including Google.

Meanwhile, I have also compiled a list of controversial SEO techniques at : Avoid these SEO Techniques » SEO HAWK . I am sure you would like it

[inertia]

All the hidden content is there with the correct intent. It was added to solve the problems which flash and text within images creates so I'm confident that I could defend it.

There's a mixed bag of answers here really! The site is doing well with plenty of top 5s so i dont think theyve suffered so far and ive seen worse!!

Hhhhm. Think its a judgement call!... Im going to replace the flash menu and add proper text instead of images. Better safe than sorry and it wont take too long.

Cheers for the response...

[davidweb]

Originally Posted by inertia

Better safe than sorry and it wont take too long.

Cheers for the response...

I was given a task to revive a SEO dead website. Closely inspecting 500 pages , I found that 85% of content was duplicate.

You need to make sure that your client is not indulging in any controversial techniques ( deliberately or inadvertently).

I am sure you would not want your client to commit SEO suicide.

[Professional SEO]

If you are presenting information in a different way to the googlebot than to your visitors you are asking for trouble.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Professional SEO

If you are presenting information in a different way to the googlebot than to your visitors you are asking for trouble.

Define "different way."

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Professional SEO

If you are presenting information in a different way to the googlebot than to your visitors you are asking for trouble.

Yeah! Please "define different" way please.