mezzoblue: Image Replacement + Google

By Anson, at 20:42:11 on 2008-05-14.

2008-05-14T20:42:11-08:00

Abu, Google already does a lot of work parsing massive amounts of HTML, not to mention the work done with that parsed HTML to rank pages effectively according to relevancy. Checking the CSS for common methods that hide content is really not that difficult in comparison to what they're already doing with the content they're indexing.

By Web Design Glasgow, at 07:48:38 on 2008-05-16.

2008-05-16T07:48:38-08:00

Google can't really penalise anything based on its analysis of your CSS because it can change after the page loads. For example, you might hide a div with display:none until the user mouses over a particular area of the page.

Thus, Google has to resort to language analysis to detect keyword stuffing, and links to determine a level of trust in the page.

By Jordan Clark, at 18:43:39 on 2008-05-19.

2008-05-19T18:43:39-08:00

@ Dave:
"One assumes Google is smart, and their algorithms ought to know the difference between keyword-stuffed text and plain English content written for real people."

You're right there. For anyone who needs convincing on Google's intelligence, take a look at the two articles written by Sergey Brin that I've linked to below – they provide an insight into the sheer thought that has gone into Google, as well as how it works "under the hood".

A quick glimpse at these should convince you not to worry about things like image replacement, the 'off-left' technique, or using the odd 'display: none' rule to hide a skip link etc.

The Anatomy of a Search Engine
http://tinyurl.com/6zxo7h

What can you do with a Web in your Pocket?
http://tinyurl.com/6dblxl

PS: I've converted these rather ugly, long-winded links into "tiny URLs" because I don't want to be responsible for breaking your layout (I'm good like that!). Also, the documents are only available in Postscript and PDF respectively, so I've linked to the HTML versions generated by Google.

By Mike Cherim, at 13:58:35 on 2008-05-21.

2008-05-21T13:58:35-08:00

I spoke with Google about this about a year ago and it was put to me quite matter-of-factly: They don't care about legitimate uses of hiding text for design and accessibility, that they check before pulling the plug, and that logic and common-sense is applied.

I was relieved to hear it.

By David, at 18:04:02 on 2008-06-01.

2008-06-01T18:04:02-08:00

Hey,

google uses image replacement techniques like Ole mentioned above: Have a closer look at Google Reader - the logo is replaced via css. Actually, it's a h1 which inner text is hidden and replaced by an image.

I think Google does not flag a site for using these techniques without manual review. I use as much text replacement images as it makes sense...

By Ricardo Zea, at 11:24:06 on 2008-06-04.

2008-06-04T11:24:06-08:00

That's why I hate that 'innocent' attitude from Google.

What if then Google comes and says: "Using images to replace text is not a proper technique, is not search engine/bot friendly."

Then we all have to bow down and obey. BS.

It's like if Google 'owns' the truth now, a truth that we all already know exists WAY before Google existed.

It's OBVIOUS this technique es proper, it respects human users and search bots/spiders in every sense, and this happens even without Google having to state it in their Webmaster Help Center.

We were lucky, VERY lucky, that Google considered that rule as 'valid', otherwise, web designers/SEO consultants would've had to kneel and bow.

Google sucks big time, it's either what they WANT or what they WANT.

Sad reality mates.

By Rick Lecoat, at 05:03:10 on 2008-06-26.

2008-06-26T05:03:10-08:00

@Anson:
"Checking the CSS for common methods that hide content is really not that difficult in comparison to what they’re already doing with the content they’re indexing."

I'm sure your analysis of the relative complexities is correct. But I routinely list my external CSS files as off-limits to robots via my robots.txt file. (After all, I do want the content of my pages indexed, but why would I want my styling code indexed?)

Which raises the questions that I've asked in several SEO forums over time (but never got a conclusive response to): if Google has been told to ignore your CSS files, and assuming that it honours that instruction, how then can it determine when CSS has been used to hide text in the markup? External CSS must, by now, be more prevalent than styles placed in the head of the page after all. Does it simply look for markup that has been known to be used for image replacement? That would be quite a big assumption to make -- I'm sure that image replacement is not the only use for an empty span.

Can Google really get past a disallowed external CSS file?

By Tilaka, at 12:21:20 on 2008-07-11.

2008-07-11T12:21:20-08:00

We've just begun to use CSS sprites with one client - and I never thought about this particular approach to introducing descriptive text.

Sprites are not very mainstream yet, but they certainly can help download speed by reducing the number of http connections. With google putting more and more emphasis on the end user experience when they click on google search results, all those factors that improve page speed seem to be potentially helpful in ranking.

By Reynder (findability), at 01:08:26 on 2008-07-15.

2008-07-15T01:08:26-08:00

I use already some image replacement technics and is nice to see that is still evolving. Thanks for the usefull info and the tips.

By Troy Dalmasso, at 21:07:46 on 2008-07-16.

2008-07-16T21:07:46-08:00

@Rick

"Can Google really get past a disallowed external CSS file?"

I'm I'm correct, a "no follow" will prevent an engine from indexing a page but they will still read it, nonetheless. They will still see your styles which is how they know if you are using black hat techniques.

An engine will read all code that a browser would load.