| 1:47 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Those two have been in the forums many, many times over the years.
1: no. Css is far too complex. If google were to process style sheets, it would take multiple times as much processing power.
2: no. Google does not "execute" js. It does "Read it" and strip out obvious urls.
| 3:07 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
OK, Brett_Tabke, then explain me this:
A black-seo webmaster (I'm not one of them) uses a css to fill his/her website with keywords with a color identical to the background color. And you say Google doesn't catch that?
| 3:14 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
You probably decide that there are other problems with higher priorities.
| 4:02 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|uses a css to fill his/her website with keywords with a color identical to the background color. And you say Google doesn't catch that |
Google would catch that whether the text is visible to a user or not.
| 4:50 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>Google would catch that whether the text is visible to a user or not.
> And you say Google doesn't catch that?
Not programmatically in css it wouldn't. Not at all. You can do all the hidden divs you want - you don't have to stoop to color tricks any more.
It's not google seeing it you should worry about - it is your competition narking on you - which triggers a hand check by Google.
Google rarely reads in CSS files. When they do, they most often parse them for urls.
| 5:03 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>>a color identical to the background color. And you say Google doesn't catch that?
did they ever figure how to do that algorithmically for HTML, I expect not, it's the same for CSS
what they might detect is keyword density which may be too dense and/or someone will nark on you.. either way will raise a flag for a hand check
| 7:29 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I meant the keyword stuffing, Brett. Doesn't matter if the user knows it's there or not, but G does.
| 8:08 pm on Mar 13, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Why would Google reseort to such 'desperate housewives' measures as parsing CSS and JS? They have something better: whitehat weasels that report those who employ dirty tricks, those are dangerous not googlebot.
Free weasel labour can't be beat and as long as you don't get reported it means you don't bother anyone so you serve the purpose of increasing their Index Size and you might get away with it.
[edited by: tedster at 9:05 pm (utc) on Mar. 13, 2008]
| 6:22 pm on Mar 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|uses a css to fill his/her website with keywords with a color identical to the background color |
Such a waste of time. Keyword stuffing 'on page' just has not worked for years now (if it ever did in Google). I never did it because the advice I read said 'don't'. Got a chance to test it when I had a design client and 2-3 years ago he took some advice to add huge keyword tags, description tags, huge alt tags on every image, and huge amounts of real text keywords in a footer to pages on his site. Out of curiosity I took a rankings snapshot before and after. In Google NO change was discernible.
Part of how Google understands pages is to break down the words used and assign each a weight score based on usage on the page (as well as off it). They stop counting repetition of any word after a certain point to stop this sort of rubbish.
| 12:44 pm on Mar 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I doubt the poster was worried about "keyword" stuffing. Instead, put an entire other paragraph or article in a hidden div.
Sometimes you do need to becareful with that, as you may have legitmate things on the page in hidden divs (ajax is notorious for hidden stuff until called upon). A competititor can see that and think you are slipping in hidden stuff.