with an unholy
string containing keywords.
Michael Hargreaves
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock
Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:04:48 pm Chris Dimmock wrote:
We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To
date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try
hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater.
MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09
That was nearly 4
: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date
we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to
avoid throwing babies out with bathwater. MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 -
02:09
That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues
: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date
we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to
avoid throwing babies out with bathwater. MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 -
02:09
That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues
@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind
the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO
though.
With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if
images were on.
In my
I wouldn't worry about it. Search engines are smart enough to see the
difference between trying to influence your ranking by spamming keyword etc.
Or just have an item or 2 being placed of screen for accessibility reasons.
Tijmen
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Spellacy, Michael
On 27/05/2009, at 2:26 AM, Spellacy, Michael wrote:
It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I
have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for
accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search
engines. Is my colleague correct in this
I think that if these texts are anchors for internal navigation or links
with relative URLs for pages on the site shouldn´t have no problems.
2009/5/26 Lea de Groot w...@elysiansystems.com
On 27/05/2009, at 2:26 AM, Spellacy, Michael wrote:
It was recently brought to my attention that a few
It will only be an issue if what you present to a user is different to
what you present to a search engine. If what you're doing is using a
text replacement technique using an image etc, then there are no
problems with that. But if you are adding invisible headings or links
etc (ie anything
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of David Dixon
Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 10:26 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google
I tend to use a class name like class=accessabilityonly for these
fields, in the hopes of giving a reviewer at least a clue as to what I
I'm the same, I use class=wai
- James
***
List Guidelines:
We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To
date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try
hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater.
MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09
That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes,
Google
: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date
we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to
avoid throwing babies out with bathwater. MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 -
02:09
That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues
13 matches
Mail list logo
