View Full Version : can google blacklist us becouse of this code?
Hi I'm an inhouse SEO/SEM consultant for a travel company in France for two years. We have 10.000 indexed pages in google and paying nearly 100.000 euros for Adwords campagnes. I write this just to give you the idea for the size of our company.
We'll make big changes for our site design&structure very soon.
For this new project we are outsourcing our design issues. And a guy from this company proposed me a source code to use for SEO. He insisted on we use this code at our new site structure for all pages. He claimed that son partenaire who found this source code is very good at SEO and read all the google documentation and according to google documentation this code is not spam.And I do realy not know whether this source code is spam or not. So If you could please tell me your opinions I'll be very glad. I'm afraid of blacklisting very much.
Here is the code
<head>
<title>xxx</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
<img src="" alt="xxx" title="xxx">
<span class="hidden" > xxx </span>
</h1>
</body>
Thanks
Hidden content in an H1 may be considered spam!
I agree with you.
Good, sounds like you are on the right track!
The image and alt text in the H1 are fine. The word "Hidden" and I would assume hidden content to follow are two problems. Search engines may not know content is hidden if it happens via external CSS but using the word "Hidden" kind of gives it all away, if you know what I mean!:)
If the text inside h1 is indeed hidden that this sounds like spam for me (it depends on what is the actual CSS definition for "hidden" class). The question is if Google can detect this or not, I suppose that it can.
If the text inside h1 is indeed hidden that this sounds like spam for me (it depends on what is the actual CSS definition for "hidden" class). The question is if Google can detect this or not, I suppose that it can.
The H1 is not hidden, only part of the contents of the H1 may be hidden. Even hidden content might be ok, as in ignored by search engines as long as keywords aren't stuffed in to manipulate SERPs.
I just can't think of any reason to have hidden content in an H1.
It all boils down to what content is hidden. Either way, don't point out that it is hidden!
Here is a similar situation:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/seo-mistakes-unwise-comments/
cryptblade
09-12-2007, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE=didi;115458Here is the code
<head>
<title>xxx</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
<img src="" alt="xxx" title="xxx">
<span class="hidden" > xxx </span>
</h1>
</body>
[/QUOTE]
I think the better question is WHY? It sounds to me like this "SEO" is ONLY recommending that you do this and insisting that you do this. So my question is WHY?
If this SEO does EVERYTHING else completely correctly - best practice onpage SEO, then this one code may not matter so much.
But if this SEO doesnt have all the fundamentals down correctly, then this code could be a problem. What other questionable codes is he using? Is he only insisting on using this code as the "magic bullet"?
jimbeetle
09-12-2007, 05:31 PM
There's really no debate on this. If this hidden span has no function whatsoever and is there simply to hide content, then it's going to come back to bite you, especially in the highly competitive travel segment.
Don't include it and also keep a very, very close eye on this designer to make sure he doesn't implement any other sophomoric "SEO" ideas.
I think cryptblade is correct! It all comes down to what content is placed in the hidden span. Knowing what your designer plans to place in the span is the only way to know for certain.
Without knowing what your designer plans on placing in this span, I think jimbeetle right on about your designer's intentions because I've only seen this tactic used to SPAM search engines.
Either way, there can be no final verdict until we know what content your designer plans on placing in this hidden H1 span.:cool:
There's really no debate on this. If this hidden span has no function whatsoever and is there simply to hide content, then it's going to come back to bite you, especially in the highly competitive travel segment.
Don't include it and also keep a very, very close eye on this designer to make sure he doesn't implement any other sophomoric "SEO" ideas.
Thank you very much for your answer.
In fact I have another question if you could please answer I'll be very happy. I 'am using URLRrewrite for our site and this guy told me that I'm spamming with my url names. He advised us to change our url names with our new design. He says using long keyword stuffed url names do not help SEO and it is also not good for users to remember those urls.However our site web with my urls are having very very good SERP results for 1,5 years. I had 244.000 clicks in july from google with organic search only.
My url names for our travel destinations are like that
Lets say A1 and A2 are the general terms for travel in french (like travel, vacation) and C1 , C2, C3 are the categories of travel (like hotels, cruises, ..) and D1,D2,D3 are our destionations.
And C11, C21 means different keyword for the same word like
C1=cruise
C11=cruises
And P1 is for indicating price
So my url naming looks like this
For Destination1
http://www.example.com/A1_D1/C1_A11_A2_D1_P1/A1_C1_A21_D1___.htm
For Destination1 Category1
http://www.example.com/A1_D1/C1_A11_A2_D1_P1/C1_D1___.htm
For Destination1 Category2
http://www.example.com/A1_D1/C1_A11_A2_D1_P1/C2_D1___.htm
And for all the products it is more simple
N1= Name of the product with hypens between keywords
http://www.example.com/C1-D1/N1/ID-XXXX-M-ETA-C--O--VD-.htm
ID-XXXX-M-ETA-C--O--VD- this code is for product id and marques coming from database
So I have 110 characters for destination urls, 95 characters for category urls and far more less for product urls.
Am I spamming????
If so I will accept changing my url names
Thanks,
jimbeetle
09-13-2007, 10:36 AM
beu, it doesn't matter what content is placed in that hidden span, it depends on the function. If the content is supposed to be exposed by some user action such as hover, click, drop down menu, whatever, then it can be okay. If the purpose is just to hide content with no possibility of being exposed to the user, in no way is it going to pass a sniff test no matter what the content is.
didi, I'd say that if it's working, then keep your current URL scheme. Changing it would mean putting 301 redirects in for each of the old URLs and pages usually take a bit of a hit for a while before stabilizing again. As for people remembering long URLs, they don't, they aren't supposed to -- that's what bookmarks are for. Have your designer take a look at most any successful large travel or e-commerce site and see what the URLs look like. Yours sound to be much cleaner.
beu, it doesn't matter what content is placed in that hidden span, it depends on the function.
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Some "content" has to be placed in the span before any function will be possible. Content meaning text, code, images, links, scripts and so on. An empty span is not a problem. Sorry for not being clear!
whitehat
09-13-2007, 08:38 PM
Yes, we are saying the same thing. Some "content" has to be placed in the span before any function will be possible. Content meaning text, code, images, links, scripts and so on. An empty span is not a problem. Sorry for not being clear!
Beau..
I think the rule to apply here is to ask youselves the question...
Will this be useful for our visitors?
Is this in any way deceiving our visitors by hiding keywords or phrases from them?
You shouldn't get penalised if the hidden content has a legitimate reason to be there, and is in no way benefitting your site in terms of Search engine rank and so on. Though I , as others have said, cannot think what could be needed to be hidden legitimately in this H1 tag?!
As to your keyword stuffed URL rewrites..... Im not 100% sure on this but I know they used to carry more weight in the Serps than they do know (allegedly!)... but I'm pretty sure you will not get penalised for them.
Indeed, some of the biggest and busiest sites I know have cunningly rewritten URLs (as does my site) and they dont get penalised.
Im not sure however on the URL length.....but I'm not aware of any limit imposed by google or other Serps provided its not a session string of course.
anyone?
Beau..
I think the rule to apply here is to ask youselves the question...
Will this be useful for our visitors?
Is this in any way deceiving our visitors by hiding keywords or phrases from them?
That is right whitehat but, so far we don't know the answer to either question.
Isn't the question:
At what point do u see that h1..
If the answer is only in google's cached text only view then that's spam and if court your be banned..
Isn't the question:
At what point do u see that h1..
If the answer is only in google's cached text only view then that's spam and if court your be banned..
What makes it spam?
jimbeetle
09-14-2007, 05:06 PM
I think gabs is saying if only the SEs can see, then it's spam.
whitehat
09-14-2007, 05:33 PM
That is right whitehat but, so far we don't know the answer to either question.
I think the rule to apply here is to ask youselves the question...
Will this be useful for our visitors?
Is this in any way deceiving our visitors by hiding keywords or phrases from them?
:confused: If you cant work that out I think you have a problem :eek:
Additionally that would suggest it is not important to the site structre at all and therefore I would throw it into the binary bin :D
:confused: If you cant work that out I think you have a problem :eek:
Additionally that would suggest it is not important to the site structre at all and therefore I would throw it into the binary bin :D
Sure, whitehat my problem is that there can't be spam until there is spam. Keep in mind we are talking about a designer and not a codesmith or an SEO.
By the way, I'm who said "I've only seen this tactic used to SPAM search engines." If the guy says he has read what Google has to say, I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt until we know more about "XXX".
We don't know what "XXX" represents or if it represents the same thing in each case. If "XXX" is the same in every case then yes, it's SPAM! If "XXX" is just a place holder for any content then it may not be SPAM.
Example 1:
<head>
<title>Keyword Spam</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
<img src="" alt="Keyword Spam" title="Keyword Spam">
<span class="hidden" >Keyword Spam</span>
</h1>
</body>
Example 2 and a common mistake:
<head>
<title>Keyword Spam</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
<img src="" alt="Keyword Spam's Logo" title="Keywords of Spam">
<span class="hidden" > <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "xx-xxxxxx-x";
urchinTracker();
</script></span>
</h1>
</body>
Conclusion:
Example 1 is spam.
Example 2 is not spam.
I'm not saying that there is not a good chance that this is spam based on what I've seen, I'm just saying you can't make a conviction until you know all the details. Also, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I'd seen it all just yet!;)
whitehat
09-15-2007, 07:21 AM
I see what your saying.
I just cant understand why it is taking so long to find out which of the two it is?
Im guessing you have access to the source?
and while I fully know what you are saying..
Example 2 and a common mistake:
<head>
<title>Keyword Spam</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
<img src="" alt="Keyword Spam's Logo" title="Keywords of Spam">
<span class="hidden" > <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "xx-xxxxxx-x";
urchinTracker();
</script></span>
</h1>
</body>
Just for reference, the only place I know of where you will find a working google scamalytics (analytics) script is right before the closing body tag ;)
</body>
</html>
You mention a designer vs a seo so why would any good web designer use a hidden class for a h1 or anything if its not shown..
Simple as that imho..
If a designer does it by "mistake" then that designer should learn to code..
msaqibansari
09-17-2007, 03:48 AM
google consider hidden text as a SPAM. Google mention in webmaster guide lines.
If a designer does it by "mistake" then that designer should learn to code..
So true gabs, so true!
Im guessing you have access to the source? Nope, we are in the same boat!:) All I have is what you see here.
Thak you all for your interest and help.
It was very much helpful for me.
Cheers