White on White ...or ... White on .gif

Can Google tell the difference?

[austtr]

I've been wondering why Google does not seem to see hidden links which use the same colour text and background. Why is it necessary to report these manaually with all the associated gnashing and wailing that we see over and over in these forums?

It suddenly dawned on me (I'm very slow, so be gentle with me) that in my own pet areas, a lot of these cases actually use a gif background image and same colour text for the links which are then invisible to the eye.

I've started to wonder if Google can check for "font color=#xxxxxx" being used with "bgcolor=#xxxxxx" but has no way of knowing when "font color=#xxxxxx" is being used on a same colour gif background.

Am I being paranoid or is this a reasonable assumption? I would think Google has no way of knowing what colour the gif is and probably doesn't care in the slightest.

[MHes]

Didn't google say last year they could now detect simple text within a gif? If so they must have the ability to detect a colour.

I hope so :)

[ciml]

It would be difficult for a search engine to catch hidden text comprehensively. However, I would not advise anyone to take such a course, as a human reviewer would not be expected to look on it kindly.

[jady]

Our competitor has been spamming for 7 months now with white text on white background and remains in #1 positions even after we have reported to Google several times... :(

[Darkness]

I would imagine google doesn't want to waste server resources on analysing each background gif on everypage on the internet!

[Yidaki]

>White on White ...or ... White on .gif
>Can Google tell the difference?

Humans can and will if they do a hand check of your site! Why ask? - they say it's a no-no [google.com]! ;)

[austtr]

ciml
<...a human reviewer would not be expected to look on it kindly>

Agree 100% - and therein lies the issue. It requires a human review whereas Google relies almost totally on the algo. Difficult to see any improvement happening unless there is a shift in spam eradication by way of human action.... and that costs.

[Tony_Perry]

it is big problem on google i'm afraid. look at the top 10 in any competetive search and you will find lots of hidden text.

[Brett_Tabke]

>reasonable assumption

Yes. It is all-but-impossible to detect anything but very simple same color text on the same color background.

- encoded javascript.
- css overrides.
- cascading css inheritances.
- nested tables.
- nested css includes.
- images.
- media includes.
- browser specific scripting (activeX)
- layers/divs etc.
- specific browser bugs.

The possible combination of ways to create invisible text have to be some where on the order of a 100. Coming at it from that direction would be a monumental programming task.

I think there is a way for to short circut that process. They could simply tap into the output rendering stream from a browser and check the final display values. Tapping into that stream could be done with code from an open source browser such as Mozilla. The problem with that, would be the massive computational power needed to process a couple billion pages. There was some talk a couple years ago, of a search engine doing just that. Either way, I don't think the ends justify the expenditure. After all, we are talking a fraction of a fraction of a percent where there is a problem. Certainly not worth the time or money.