Different Image Alt tags for the same image across site

[FuseSEO]

Hi All

This is a question I've been meaning to ask for a while and forgive me if it has been discussed here before.

If the same image appears across multiple pages on a website, should the alt tag always be the same or should it vary according to the subject of the page.

I suspect that Google would expect to find the same alt tag everywhere the image appears as the alt tag is supposed to describe the image. But for SEO purposes would it be beneficial to change the alt tag from just "widget" to "blue widget" or "red widget" if the image is on the blue widget/red widget page (assume it is a black and white image!)

Anyway, I'm interested to hear other opinions and more importantly, has anybody heard of a site incurring a Google penalty for mis-describing images in this way?

thanks
F

[Ace]

In my view you should keep the Same Alt Tag for that Image and Alt tags are used to describe the image if in case your image not loaded then users can see what is that image all about.

[morestar]

I'm of the same view. if i was a search engine and saw an image with the same name but with different title and alt attributes I would wonder if they are trying to spam or deceive their users.

[seopo]

ooh good question.

I'd tend to side with consistency, but were only human so there's bound to be some variation right?

If you don't take it as an opportunity to stuff different sets of keywords each time but do have a degree of variation, common sense will prevail and it will work out ok I'm sure.

Be warned that it's pretty easy for google to pick out that its the same image even if you use different file names though so heed some caution.

[morestar]

...yes for instance, apparently google can now read images to some degree, so if you were to use the same image with alternating alt/title attributes you could still get pegged.

the best thing to do would use a different image if you want to use page related keywords for each image's alt/title attributes...

[dburdon]

Fuse,
Keep it simple. Why the same image when the content changes? Why change the alt tag if you don't need to? If its a header image pick the keywords that work best across the site.

[slimwoman]

I keep the same name for my product images.

[mjtaylor]

Yes, simply, the alt tag should be the same. However, depending on the complexity of the image and the content of the page, it could be different from one to another page. The litmus test is: what makes sense for the user? If the answer to your question instructs the decision, you will be doing the right thing.

[astro]

I must admit I am wondering why the same image requires different alternative atributes in the first place? Are we talking a repeated image as a standard piece of page furniture here? Then an attempt to spam search bots/spiders with keywords to assist with page listing?

If so don't do it!

Astro

[deepsand]

The alt attribute (it's not a tag) is intended to be used for accessibility purposes.

Thus, a visually impaired user, using a screen reader such as Orca, will hear the alt text.

Therefore, just as sighted viewer will see the same image on different pages, and recognize it as such, so too should the impaired user be provided with a spoken description such that he too will understand it to be identical to another.

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by FuseSEO

Hi All

This is a question I've been meaning to ask for a while and forgive me if it has been discussed here before.

If the same image appears across multiple pages on a website, should the alt tag always be the same or should it vary according to the subject of the page.

I suspect that Google would expect to find the same alt tag everywhere the image appears as the alt tag is supposed to describe the image. But for SEO purposes would it be beneficial to change the alt tag from just "widget" to "blue widget" or "red widget" if the image is on the blue widget/red widget page (assume it is a black and white image!)

Anyway, I'm interested to hear other opinions and more importantly, has anybody heard of a site incurring a Google penalty for mis-describing images in this way?

thanks
F

Best method is if you want to change the alt tag for the same image then change the image name also. It is useful in seo point of view as well as Search engines point of view.

[SEOMG]

Really interesting question... As a bit of a cheeky expansion here, let's say you have a product page with 8 images of a specific product. The images are all different in some way & have different file names...

Let's say you're going for the keyterm "Widget"... Is setting Alt text as "Widget 1" "Widget 2" "Widget 3"... etc, enough to separate the images from a spam point of view?

Would anyone say there is some sort of keyword density line one should not cross in relation to Alt text?

Tom

[FuseSEO]

Thanks for all the replies, in response to astro, yes it is usually page furniture.

This is a scenario which often crops up.

A client makes contact who has a dreamweaver template driven site, there is one large image on each page with the alt 'attribute' set to "Widgets" but since the client had the site built they have branched out into "Sproglets" and "Doodles" Do we change the alts to reflect the subject on the Sproglets pages

or

The client approaches us with the same site, the same one large image and every alt attribute is different with keywords targetted to each individual page. Do we change them all to be identical?

The client want's a quick fix, and they desperately want more Sproglet sales before they go bust.

I guess my question is what will improve their rankings in Google in the short term? I'd be very interested to hear if anyone has any evidence to say that abiding strictly by the accessibility rules actually impoves rankings.

[Web Templates]

Hmmm, interesting question. I've never really thought about it. If there is a compelling reason, I don't think there is a problem using a different alt tag on the same image on different pages.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Best method is if you want to change the alt tag for the same image then change the image name also. It is useful in seo point of view as well as Search engines point of view.

Why would you want to potentially confuse those very users for whom the alt attribute is intended to help?

Rule 1 : Design for Users.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Web Templates

Hmmm, interesting question. I've never really thought about it. If there is a compelling reason, I don't think there is a problem using a different alt tag on the same image on different pages.

What can be so compelling that it should override the very reason for the existence of the alt attribute?

See Different Image Alt tags for the same image across site

[FuseSEO]

The reason is that the client needs more sales/better rankings.

So do you fix all their spammy alt attributes to achieve this.

Or in the case of a site which is using the alt attribute correctly do you override 'the very reason for the alt attributes existence' and add the extra keywords.

[Canonical]

As others have pointed out, the alt attribute (again it's not a tag) is an accessibility attribute for screen readers... but it's also an attribute for user agents that don't support images (like text browsers or browsers w/ images turned off).

However...

I have to disagree with most of you here. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong w/ using different alt attribute values for the same image across a given site. That makes no sense as it implies that there is only one correct description for a given image. That is like saying that link text used to link to a page should also be the same everywhere because God forbid it might "confuse" someone since there is only one description for the content of the page (NOT!)...

I agree that the various values used in multiple alt attributes for the same image should ALL describe the image itself and NOT be stuffed w/ SEO keywords. But to suggest that the search engines might somehow frown on using multiple alt attribute values for the same image on the same site is totally baseless and amusing IMO.

Google is NOT going to frown on using different alt attributes for the same image on the same site. Not every site has every page developed by the same web developer... or designed by the same web designer... so it would be totally unreasonable for the search engines to expect all of the alt attribute values to be consistant, much less actually ding a site if they are not.

Just like a picture hanging on a wall at the Metropolitan Museum of art, if you ask 100 different art critics for a 1 sentence description of a particular painting, you'll likely get 100 different answers... all very good descriptions of the same painting, but different none the less. Hell, if you asked the same art critic on 100 different days to describe the content of the same painting you'd likely get 100 different answers.

The key is making sure the alt attribute accurately descibes the image, NOT that any one description is correct. There are usually infinitely many descriptions one could come up with for the same image. It's okay to use as many as you want so long as they accurately describe the image.

[morestar]

Well I personally don't believe, unless it's completely clear, that google would ever penalize a site for using different keywords in alt attributes but i believe a certain trust might be built if there's clear consistency.

My above stated belief stems from the release of the google image labeler which is promoted as something we can do to "help improve the quality of Google's image search results".

So there is a possibility that the less 'confusion' that is created the easier it will be to read your site and that might be where the benefit comes in - i my head anyways.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by Canonical

The key is making sure the alt attribute accurately descibes the image, NOT that any one description is correct. There are usually infinitely many descriptions one could come up with for the same image. It's okay to use as many as you want so long as they accurately describe the image.

Which is exactly what ALT is for. There is nowhere in the spec that it is suggested this attribute be used for SEO, and the fact that it has been used for this purpose is only a sign of normalization of a gray-hat technique the SEs figured out a long time ago. Stick to the purpose for which ALT was intended, and knock yourself out with the way you 'accurately' describe your image.

Bear in mind that not all images require a description, and in many cases it is not desired, owing to the excessive verbosity that can result which will tend to muddy the waters rather than clarify. Stand back a moment and take in the whole page, attributes and content combined and just listen to it. If it sounds confusing, it is.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Canonical

... God forbid it might "confuse" someone since there is only one description for the content of the page (NOT!)...

Just like a picture hanging on a wall at the Metropolitan Museum of art, if you ask 100 different art critics for a 1 sentence description of a particular painting, you'll likely get 100 different answers... all very good descriptions of the same painting, but different none the less. Hell, if you asked the same art critic on 100 different days to describe the content of the same painting you'd likely get 100 different answers.

Were we comparing the information presented to, and as interpreted by, sighted users, the point would be moot.

However, the alt attribute is intended for use by visually impaired users.

That makes all the difference.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by FuseSEO

The reason is that the client needs more sales/better rankings.

So do you fix all their spammy alt attributes to achieve this.

Or in the case of a site which is using the alt attribute correctly do you override 'the very reason for the alt attributes existence' and add the extra keywords.

What "spammy" alt attributes?

If by that you mean that they are presently identical, that alone does not make them "spammy."

[kwikstand]

A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kwikstand

A picture is worth a thousand words, right?

Sometimes, perhaps; but, only sometimes.

While one can conceivably employ an infinite number of words sets to describe any visual image, the converse is not necessarily true.

[Canonical]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Were we comparing the information presented to, and as interpreted by, sighted users, the point would be moot.

However, the alt attribute is intended for use by visually impaired users.

That makes all the difference.

Not entirely correct deep...

Straight from the wc3...

alt = text [CS] For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text.

It not intended just for visually impaired users... It's intended for ANY user agent that cannot display images. I thought I made it clear that I understood that in the first sentence of my post...

As others have pointed out, the alt attribute (again it's not a tag) is an accessibility attribute for screen readers... but it's also an attribute for user agents that don't support images (like text browsers or browsers w/ images turned off).

It's not just for visually impaired users, although that is one use of the attribute... It's also for text browsers like Lynx and for people who unfortunately still use dial up and frequently turn off image down loads so they can actually surf the web over dial up. Hell the attribute probably existed BEFORE accessibility was ever even addressed by the w3c. But I wouldn't swear to it or bother to try to pin down the dates.

[deepsand]

1) I didn't say that it was intended exclusively for visually impaired users.

2) The no. of users of text only browsers is abysmally small.

3) The difference between text only browsers and screen readers is a distinction of no relevance with respect to the intended use of the alt attribute; i.e., both use such to render text in lieu of a visual image.

[weegillis]

In this example, taken from, the HTML 4 spec,

<BODY>
<P>
<IMG src="sitemap.gif"
     alt="HP Labs Site Map"
     longdesc="sitemap.html">
</BODY>

Originally Posted by http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.2

The alt attribute provides a short description of the image. This should be sufficient to allow users to decide whether they want to follow the link given by the longdesc attribute to the longer description, here "sitemap.html".

The alt attribute, then, is meant to be informative, but succinct, so as not to be excessively verbose. Possibly earlier, I don't remember, but for sure from HTML 4 onward, alt text has displayed in image placeholders immediately at page load, before images are downloaded (if they are at all). ALL user agents make use of this information, not just screen or text readers.

There doesn't appear to be any objection to variations being used in describing an image. What BEST describes anything? We all see things a different way, the variation will probably appeal to more people in the long run. The only proviso is brevity, and as shown above, the use of the longdesc to lead to a more detailed explanation, if one is required or does exist.

Segue: It's interesting to note that the example above uses an image to represent a site map, then links to the html from the longdesc. One would be cautioned about this technique not being fully supported across all browsers. If you use it, be sure to have fall back links elsewhere in the document.

[astro]

I have had this same argument in 2000! Whilst lambasting the Sydney Olympics for being inaccessible, especially the paralympics! I was attacked (verbally) for being a hypocrite, the issue was page furniture and the fact I provided Text only versions of all pages which ignored the page furniture totally. Plus I did not provide Alt. Attributes on the normal page for page furniture.

My abuser claimed "But I wish to access the same page as everyone's else, so why not provide an alternative attribute for the page furniture?"

My reply was "Fine access it, it will work for you, but if I comply with your wishes 43 instances of curly arrow left and curly arrow right, could possibly irritate!"

The irony was the web site at that time (2000) had just got a best practice award from ICDRI.

It was shortly afterwards I fell out of love with accessibility, it was expensive to comply with, a pain to push to clients and deep down no one cared enough to pay for the extra time it took to effectively build two web sites for every single job. One site the client paid for, the other the client wanted but I built for free 'cos he would not or could not pay twice. Getting the navigation to work was a nightmare!!

/astro

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Why would you want to potentially confuse those very users for whom the alt attribute is intended to help?

Rule 1 : Design for Users.

I am not confusing at all. I had posted the effective method of utilizing the alt attribute in SEO point of view. And by doing this user will never get hurt.

I will give the respect to the users too. Yes I follow rule 1. Design for the USERS

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

I am not confusing at all. I had posted the effective method of utilizing the alt attribute in SEO point of view. And by doing this user will never get hurt.

Are you, for instance, a blind user? If not, have you ever considered how a blind user here relies on sound?

Do you not understand that such a user will not necessarily and immediately recognize two distinctly different strings of phonemes as referring to the same entity, particularly if such person has been blind from birth?

The alt attribute was not intended to be used for SEO purposes; to attempt to so employ it is a perversion of purpose, one which may very well have consequences that you cannot personally appreciate.

[cw1865]

Well, whether it was intended for SEO purposes or not, the bottom line is that the search engine spiders aren't particularly adept at figuring at what's going on in a .jpg/.gif picture. Google images is out there - as a product seller, I'm not particularly concerned about google images, so I just leave the alt tag for a photo = product name because really that is what the photo is! But if you're more artistically oriented or if you have a clipart website or if you're a website owner like Jordan who has pictures of the Irish countryside with adsense on it, the alt tag is obviously more critical.

I can understand how you might want a particular image to be described in different ways. So if you're showing Niagara Falls, other potential keywords include say, American Falls or Canadian Falls, but if you want to do that, perhaps consider renaming the image itself, ie. niagara.jpg, americanfalls.jpg, canadianfalls.jpg?

I think you said the image you were referring to and trying to give different alt tags to was 'furniture'? Perhaps giving a different alt tag to the logo or header constant over various pages? Personally I don't see how that would behoove you....

[subhzash]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Are you, for instance, a blind user? If not, have you ever considered how a blind user here relies on sound?

Do you not understand that such a user will not necessarily and immediately recognize two distinctly different strings of phonemes as referring to the same entity, particularly if such person has been blind from birth?

The alt attribute was not intended to be used for SEO purposes; to attempt to so employ it is a perversion of purpose, one which may very well have consequences that you cannot personally appreciate.

Do you think user will look at the alt images, does they really note down how many times alt tags repeated for same images?

My intention to if any website is using same header images but different text on that, in that case depending on the existing text we have the image name and alt attribute.

More ever if image is not loaded then only alt attribute will appear to the user. I am sure ALT TAG is definitely useful in SEO

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by subhzash

Do you think user will look at the alt images, does they really note down how many times alt tags repeated for same images?

Users employing screen readers to not "look" at anything; instead, they hear the text spoken to them.

The alt attribute serves to provide the text that they hear.

If an image is displayed multiple times, with all presentations bearing an identical alt attribute, they will hear precisely the same words, just as a sighted viewer will see precisely the same image. In each case, all users will innately recognize that what they are seeing/hearing is identical to that which they have previously seen/heard.

However, if you use different alt attributes for the same image, the user employing a screen reader will hear different words, and thus not easily and quickly understand that the image being described is identical to one previously described. This user will therefore have an experience that is quite different from one who is visually viewing the image, one that may in fact be confusing and/or misleading.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Which is exactly what ALT is for. There is nowhere in the spec that it is suggested this attribute be used for SEO, and the fact that it has been used for this purpose is only a sign of normalization of a gray-hat technique the SEs figured out a long time ago. Stick to the purpose for which ALT was intended, and knock yourself out with the way you 'accurately' describe your image.

Bear in mind that not all images require a description, and in many cases it is not desired, owing to the excessive verbosity that can result which will tend to muddy the waters rather than clarify. Stand back a moment and take in the whole page, attributes and content combined and just listen to it. If it sounds confusing, it is.

Very good point, weegillis. For instance, I sometimes use miniature logo images as the buttons in my site navigation. Typically, that image will be named simply "button.png", but I'm certainly not going to use an alt. text attribute for that image, and have a reader flood my user with it, only to be followed by the alt. text for the nav. link itself.

However, I usually do use alt. text for the banner at the head of each page, simply as something like "Acme Logo Banner".

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Users employing screen readers to not "look" at anything; instead, they hear the text spoken to them.

The alt attribute serves to provide the text that they hear.

If an image is displayed multiple times, with all presentations bearing an identical alt attribute, they will hear precisely the same words, just as a sighted viewer will see precisely the same image. In each case, all users will innately recognize that what they are seeing/hearing is identical to that which they have previously seen/heard.

However, if you use different alt attributes for the same image, the user employing a screen reader will hear different words, and thus not easily and quickly understand that the image being described is identical to one previously described. This user will therefore have an experience that is quite different from one who is visually viewing the image, one that may in fact be confusing and/or misleading.

Important point; you've shifted my point of view. Thank you. I concur.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Doc

.. I sometimes use miniature logo images as the buttons in my site navigation. Typically, that image will be named simply "button.png", but I'm certainly not going to use an alt. text attribute for that image, and have a reader flood my user with it, only to be followed by the alt. text for the nav. link itself.

However, I usually do use alt. text for the banner at the head of each page, simply as something like "Acme Logo Banner".

There is a most logical divide here, one between images that serve as functional elements, and those which are content.

However, simply because an image serves a functional purpose does not perforce mean that use of the alt attribute is inappropriate; to the contrary, if the user is employing either a screen reader or a text only browser, and is to have access to said function, then not only is the alt attribute appropriate, but required.

In this case the alt text should be descriptive of the function to be performed.

[morestar]

Originally Posted by Doc

For instance, I sometimes use miniature logo images as the buttons in my site navigation. Typically, that image will be named simply "button.png", but I'm certainly not going to use an alt. text attribute for that image, and have a reader flood my user with it, only to be followed by the alt. text for the nav. link itself.

I kind of can't understand what you're saying doc but if you're saying that you don't add the alt attribute to an image that is used as a navigation item then I would suggest you do so because obviously that would tell the user that there is a link there...

My apologies if I've miss-understood what you were saying Doc.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by morestar

I kind of can't understand what you're saying doc but if you're saying that you don't add the alt attribute to an image that is used as a navigation item then I would suggest you do so because obviously that would tell the user that there is a link there...

My apologies if I've miss-understood what you were saying Doc.

No, I have a nav button to the left of each nav link. I use link-specific alt. text on each link, but put no alt. text attribute on the button graphic, as it would be superfluous and just clutter things up.

[morestar]

OK yes, that's what I would do too, if anything I would put "link to bla bla" but the actual link, if it was an image, would have that there anyways...

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Doc

No, I have a nav button to the left of each nav link. I use link-specific alt. text on each link, but put no alt. text attribute on the button graphic, as it would be superfluous and just clutter things up.

Both are active?

If so, is not that in and of itself superfluous?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Both are active?

If so, is not that in and of itself superfluous?

The graphic is there mostly for cosmetic purposes, but since some will click on it, rather than the accompanying text link, it's an active, identical link. I just don't put any alt. text on it.

[deepsand]

Which has the larger cross-area?

If accessibility is of concern, might it not be a good idea to place the alt text on the larger? (I'm guessing here, as I can't truly understand what it's like being blind and trying to find anything on a web page.)

[morestar]

ohhh i see...

So do screen readers read and announce the link and where it goes?

If not it might be better to add the alt text to the link button too even though it accompanies that link beside it - just so as to not confuse them...

I'm not sure though how they handle links...

[Doc]

Originally Posted by morestar

ohhh i see...

So do screen readers read and announce the link and where it goes?

If not it might be better to add the alt text to the link button too even though it accompanies that link beside it - just so as to not confuse them...

I'm not sure though how they handle links...

Originally, I had simply placed the button, with the link text alongside it, and then superimposed a link area over the top of both. But it increased the amount of code quite a lot, and I thought it might slow the pageload a little, so I simply made the text the actual link, and placed the graphic alongside.

Now though, I think I'll be doing the nav as an SSI, which should help the load.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by morestar

So do screen readers read and announce the link and where it goes?

Yes; and, text only browsers display the alt text in place of an image.

Originally Posted by morestar

I'm not sure though how they handle links...

It's still an actionable link.

Without researching it, I'm not certain as to how W3C recommends handling actionable images; i.e. use alt or title attribute. It may be that screen readers can use either, but give one preference if both are present.

Perhaps we should put the question to Webnauts, as he seems to be more on top of this than are most.

[Doc]

Good call, DS. I think your idea of both being serviceable, but one being given preference makes sense, but John, I think, is the most knowledgeable here on accessibility issues.

[deepsand]

Since he seems to be actively engaged in such thread, I've posted a request to him at Should we make drastic changes to our sites before the release of Google Caffeine?

[Steveburner]

Different Image Alt tags for the same image across site question remain question?If any one explain clearly

[designer5]

I think it should be same as image name. Because it gives visitors the idea about the image.