invisible or hidden layers

[stanford]

I know basic web design, but know little of search engine optimization techniques. My knowledge is all theoretical, and am still sheltered by the ivory towers. In have a question on a specific tactic I hope someone will be able to clarify.

The site is done in ASP.NET. Near the end of the body the below code has been inserted. From what I have read, since it is hidden from the traditional user it would be considered bad form. The company doing the work told my aunt, "it is not really invisible or hidden since it can be seen with a text reader." Moreover, they stated a search engine would not even notice it, and that it was a common practice to get the keywords recognized and subsequently positioned.

My aunt knows little about web intricacies, and before this company is too far into the work I did say I would do some research. I have asked some who I know, and have received conflicting answers. I do know theory and practice have different spots, which is why I am posting here. I do not want to give the wrong info.

Thanks

<div id="Layer2" style="position:absolute; width:701px; height:115px; z-index:2; visibility: hidden">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1">
<tr>
<td valign="top">Our Services include information on:<br>

keyword upon keyword stuffed with more than 300 key phrases inserted****************************************** ************************************************** ********
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>

[seomike]

If you leave it on the site don't expect much traffic from the search engines. Even if the filters don't see it, humans will and then report it.

I'd get rid of it.

[steve sardell]

Stanford,

I agree with Seomike. It is not a method i would suggest, and would erase it. Basically, it is keyword stuffing, and not intended for the site visitor. If they are doing the hidden layer stuffing then you also may want to check behind images. You well may find keywords stuffed behind them.

There are good reasons to use hidden layers, but keyword stuffing is not one of them.

It is true, search engines, at this point in time, may not be able to detect this method, but as mentioned someone will, especially if the site gains positioning. It may take a while to be detected, but there is no reason to employ this trick. There are better metods to get ranked for your phrases.

This is just my opinion

[stanford]

Thank you Seomike and Steve for taking the time to answer my question. Both of you seem to echo my initial thoughts.

Apparently, the use of hidden text or layers for keywords is not all that prevelent. Initially, I was hoping there would be more responses to the question, but if the consensus is not to use then they would be redundant.

The unfortunate thing is, the tactic seems to work, at least in the immediate return. Since the hidden layers were inserted, the site shows strong on the MSN beta. Granted it is only a beta, but the site is doing a whole lot better now than before, though, it still does not show well in Google or Yahoo. I realize they have different ranking criteria, and at the moment are the two main search engines.

I think I am going to heed your advice, and instruct they should be removed. This is a site for the long term, and is to be used to supplement an already strongly branded retail store.

Thank you

[David Wallace]

It is hidden content which is against search engines guidelines. Is it spam? That depends upon one's opinion but think of it as driving down the freeway where the speed limit is 65 mph but everyone is going 85 mph so you do the same. You are simply flowing with traffic and in most cases you are not going to get a speeding ticket. However, technically you are speeding and if a traffic cop decides to "single you out" then you have no defense. ;)

[steve sardell]

think of it as driving down the freeway where the speed limit is 65 mph but everyone is going 85 mph so you do the same. You are simply flowing with traffic and in most cases you are not going to get a speeding ticket. However, technically you are speeding and if a traffic cop decides to "single you out" then you have no defense.

Not to appear contentious, but I can only agree with with part of the speeding analogy.

It is true, you are more than likely not going to get caught. But if caught or reported, unlike speeding, you wll not simply have points deducted, pay a fine and be on your way as if nothing has happened.

To me, suffing keyphrases in a hidden layer is with out question a shady technique. If employing any shady method, one needs to be prepared for the ramifications of breaking a SE's TOS. At times it is more than a slap on the wrist.

[Marcia]

I'd get rid of that without a moment's hesitation. Keyword stuffing in a hidden layer is flat out spam. Also see if there are any links to anyplace hidden in there. For someone in it for the long term with a branded site it's foolhardy and I'm surprised a reputable company wouldn't at least let her know there's risk. It does violate search engine standards and if it gets caught it's not a good thing at all.

Have they done anything to optimize the visible on-page content or the navigation, or advised getting some good links, or is that all they've done?

After that, I'd want to see whatever else has been done with the site. It may not be that hidden layer getting the rankings with the msn beta, it may be something else entirely.

[glengara]

Could only understand them doing that if Aunty was opposed to making any changes to the site.

[stanford]

Thank you David, Marcia, and Glengara for taking valuable time to answer my question. After reading what you have to say, I think it will be best to 86 the contracted firm.
Could only understand them doing that if Aunty was opposed to making any changes to the site. Actually, the contracted firm were also the designers. They have had complete site control, and have been timely paid.
Have they done anything to optimize the visible on-page content or the navigation, or advised getting some good links, or is that all they've done? In regards to onpage content, a copywriter was employed to write the scripts; this included the home page, mission statement, and the company history. It is well written.The navigation is intuitive, and there are no complaints there. The visual design and site workings are well accomplished. There are currently only four external links to the site, all from sites the design company controls. I know this will present a problem in attaining rakings on Google. It has been, however, indexed in Google. The linking was to be a separate contract, but IMO she should now look elsewhere.

This firm may be good designers, but, from you I get they are not good at attaining rankings with the proper methods.

It is fortunate, this is to be a secondary income stream, and the time frame is not as important as the vehicle itself.

I appreciate your input.

[Marcia]

SEO can be and often is done in conjunction with design and serves as a guideline to search engine friendly design, but it's a separate discipline with a different skill-set, even though there is an overlap where certain elements are concerned. One of the most important aspects is knowing what to avoid per search engine guidelines. There are high risk and low risk techniques, and disclosure should be made.

>>best to 86 the contracted firm
>>the contracted firm were also the designers

Having the designers maintain the site periodically is one thing and should be fine; but if what you described is how they're optimizing, then the responsibility for optimization would be best taken out of their hands.

Site owners should ideally get to know at least enough about it to be able to make informed decisions, even if they don't actually end up doing the work themselves. You may want to do some reading up yourself on behalf of your aunt - starting with the search engine guidelines.

[glengara]

*and the time frame is not as important as the vehicle itself.*

Very little of this is complicated Stanford, a bit of judicious reading and questioning here and there should see you right.

As for links, most forums have lists of free directories, if you've the time and inclination.....

[sarumu1]

here's a great resource (published by a frequent contributer on this site) of preselected directories to get your aunt's site on its way:

www.directoryarchives.com (http://directoryarchives.com/).

i paid the one time eval fee for most of the ones in the "powerful and popular" section just to save time - most of them will let you submit for free if you're willing to wait. i'd like to say that i'm a big fan of the wow directory and uncoverthenet. the morning after they were listed, google listed their pages containing my site's name in a general search for my site.

subbu.

[Mel]

GoogleGuy has addressed this very topic on a recent post in this forum:

...Hmm, that's strange. class=giffard? What does that mean? I guess I'd better check out their CSS file at http://www.quit-smoking-quitting-sm.../linktables.css in order to see what "giffard" means. Oh, here it is:
.giffard means
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 1px;
color: #FCFCFC;
background-color: #FFFFFF;
visibility: hidden;

Wait a second. visibility hidden? font-size is set to 1 pixel? But wouldn't that mean that all those great resource links are hidden to users? Hmm...

This is a technique that is frowned on at best. If you go to the page that Googleguy is discussing you will see that they have a nice PR0 despite many inbound links, but then they are doing lots of other bad stuff too.