1x1 pixel links

One good purpose

[jdMorgan]

In another thread, cornwall wrote:

Whilst there can be reasons (site search on single pixel link spamming) for single pixels on a site, there can be no legitimate reason for links, or series of links (complete with alt tags!) off such small gifs :(

Actually, there is one, and I sure hope Google takes it into account: Bad-bot traps.

These will indeed have links on them - and possibly cautionary alt text as well; I sure hope Google takes into account that the links are Disallowed in robots.txt!

Jim

[rfgdxm1]

There is another. They can be used for off site web stats services. Quite a few people do this. The mere existence of such links on a page proves nothing. You'd have to look at what they are linking to and see if the purpose is to trick search engines.

[jomaxx]

Why would the image have to be a link for stats purposes?

[jdMorgan]

It serves as an invisible anchor for the link, since it's transparent. It is hosted on and fetched from an external site which does the "hit counting."

I'd forgotten about those...

JIm

[eaden]

>>It is hosted on and fetched from an external site which does the "hit counting."

That makes sence. When the image is requested it counts it as a hit count. But..

>>It serves as an invisible anchor for the link, since it's transparent.

Why does it need to be a link? It will count hits without a link just fine..

[rfgdxm1]

I currently have one of these on a site of mine jdMorgan. Although, now I mostly use stats from the logs provided by the host. This sort of thing is very useful with free hosts, such as Tripod, Geocities, ISP webspace, etc. that don't provide stats. This is the only way to get stats at all with most free webspace. Since the invisible link just goes to a stats tracking service, no question that it is there to boost PR of other sites of yours, etc. Unquestionably, a legit reason for a link on a 1x1 gif.

[eaden]

rfgdxm1, the service works by the browser requesting the image, via the src of the img tag, not with an a href tag.

The only ligit reason to have a link is if people are going to click on it, and as it's 1x1 pixel, that isn't likely to happen.

[jdMorgan]

eaden,

Right - semantics got me... The img src is fetched, which increments the hit counter.

However, your description of a clickable linked image is the core of its use as a bad-bot trap.

Jim

[rfgdxm1]

Actually eaden, some of these services do have them in the form of a clickable link. The idea being that the webmaster clicks on the link, enters his password, and then gets his stats. To make them invisible I've seen webmasters have them 1x1 gifs. This creates a small, little dot that the site users won't see. However, the webmaster knows where it is, and can put his mouse over it and click on it to get his stats. Thus, convenient for the webmaster, but not annoying to the visitor. Essentially, this is a link for the webmaster only.

[markdidj]

I don't believe this.

My site has recently been banned because I used a method used by spammers, hidden text made visible onmouseover.

I learnt that it was a problem, so I reluctantly changed my site.

Luckily for me Google are trying out a new algo, and trying it out on previously banned sites.

Now in this algo it looks like they're looking out for 1x1 pixel gifs.

I use transparent 1x1 pixel gifs for area maps, hide copyrighted pics from right-click and a few other things. Is my site looking at a ban again, just as I discover another problem? There's no way of changing it before the next index.

do they check gif size, or the size it is applied on the screen? If they check gif size, isn't it abit pointless?

[rfgdxm1]

markdidj, are these 1x1 gifs links? And, if so, are they to your own site, or other sites?

[markdidj]

Some are links above © pics, but they are all internal. Other's are area maps, but they are used for mouse rollovers (mostly playing sounds). Is that OK?

[rfgdxm1]

If they are internal links, then no way they could be used to inflate PR, unlike hidden links to other sites. Unless what you are doing creates hidden text on the page that could affect the rank of the page, this shouldn't be penalized.

[markdidj]

Would you not recommend using blank.gif with a link as a first line of defence for copyrighted pics then? I will have to check the whole website, but blank.gif (the transparent 1x1 pic ) is everywhere.

Are they looking at the resizing to 1x1 or 1x1 pixels? Whats the smallest pixel size they allow? I really don't think spammers who use a 1x1 pixel method will mind making it 5x5, or 100x100, putting it in a div of 5x5 border 2, and sizing it to 100%

[markdidj]

If it's gif size they are working with....
a 1x1 pixel gif 43bytes
10x10 pixel gif 49bytes
100x100 pixel gif 156bytes.

Not much in it if your a spammer.
It's only worth it if they can work out the size it is applied to the screen, after css and js have been applied.

[DaveAtIFG]

Some affiliate programs include a 1 X 1 gif in their links, BeFree still uses them.

[iThink]

Text links provided by CJ.com also use 1x1 gif for click tracking.

[MyWifeSays]

I don't think Google would consider 1x1 gifs as spam, just when they're used with hidden links.

The affiliate text links I've seen are just that "text links". A 1x1 gif may be used too but this isn't a link.

[iThink]

>>"The affiliate text links I've seen are just that "text links". A 1x1 gif may be used too but this isn't a link."

OK, I stand corrected. CJ links have a text link followed by a 1x1 image. 1x1 image is not a link, it just trails the text.