Forum Moderators: open
We have put up a few sites recently, all CSS and XHTML. They have all done quite well in Google but one. With this particular page we did two things differently:
The page was spidered, into Google, then disappeared (from Google only - number one or two in the other engines). I couldn't figure out why. It was valid but for a couple of small insignificant (to this client, and likely to Google) errors.
Then I was going through some posts here on WebmasterWorld, when I got inspired to try a reinclusion request - lo and behold the site is back, and first for it's keywords - though only the index page. Hopefully with time the whole thing will appear.
Google never wrote back to me about my page, and what was wrong with it. Now, a new client, would like me to use this method on their menu. If done well it provides extra help to the user, both if CSS is enabled or disabled - i.e. it's accessible, usable text. So I'm fine with it - I'm not keyword stuffing either.
So, do I try it again, at the risk of endagering this new clients URL? Who knows if the other site will ever be completely spidered again. If it was for reason #2, then maybe Google sees hidden text sans javascript as 'bad-hidden-text'.
If so, this would also put an end to some of the new variations of 'Pure-CSS-Tabs' that we're seeing more of - all of them semantically correct but use one form or another of hidden text without javascript.
Has anyone else experienced/noticed this? I would love to know if so - if you use it and have been penalized, or haven't been penalized.
If some of the new filters are being tripped by some of this CSS-trickery, it would be good to let Google know, so that we can use this technology to it's full potential without being 'afraid' of getting dropped by Google - it's enough that we CSS users are held back by IE6!
Furthermore, perhaps if no javascript is detected, they determine that it is some sort of cheating hidden text technique rather than a dropdown menu or some variation on that theme.
Just some thoughts on how they could have found this and penalized it.
SN
It is. All of the style and structure for the site is in the CSS, in an external file.
This is why I mentioned possibility #2 in the second message.
Either way, what would work here would be some feedback from Google - I'm still waiting with fingers crossed.
This type of use of 'hidden text' is all the rage right now by css + standards based designers who are sort of pushing the edge of semantic markup and separation of style and structure form content, all the while keeping it accessible and usable. It would be great to know that it was safe. (CSS design is already limited by what the most popular browser (ie6) can do, we don't need it held back by Google too.)
For examples, have a search for:
pure css popups
pure css tabs
pure css tabs kalsey
fahrner image replacement
I have a few of new sites in Google too, and two of them are playing up terribly - in and out of the index, pages missing for weeks etc.
I also have a competitor who uses a similar technique to the one you describe, except that the css is all in the page rather than external. The site is still doing well (much to my annoyance)
I really think you're reading too much into this.
I hope that it isn't anything to worry about, but one can never know. Thats why I am asking the users here.
I've heard from users on other lists about this topic - they can all give me examples of the use of text hiding techniques that haven't been penalized, so that bodes well for using them, and maybe there is some other unseen problem with my site - that only Google knows/sees. Alternatively though, these examples are mostly high profile sites with high pr and backlinks (www.csszengarden for example).
I have a few of new sites in Google too
Sounds like coincidence to me too. And perhaps a little forum3 paranoia thrown in for good measure ;)
I use display: none; on most sites I do for navigation/access stuff and that would almost certainly trip the same filter if there really was one in place.
Don't worry about it, go with your instincts: If it's good for Joe Public, it's good for G in the vast majority of cases...
Nick
Great to hear from both of you, thanks for the advice/outside vantage point!
Forum 3 paranoia... Hmmm, you may be on to something there. Hadn't thought of that one. Okay, I'm outta here!
I still think it is a good idea to put your CSS in an external file just to reduce the bulk of what the spiders have to crawl through to see the content, but hiding things on a site doesn't automatically mean you are being sneaky.
Great point - now that you metion it, when I look at our serps, hidden text spammers that used to dominate are still there, but below (for the most part) those that don't use hidden text.
i.e. All I see is support to your theory.
WRT the original topic, I guess something else must have turned Google off - though I am still inclined to think that it was a penalty of some sorts - the site did very well in the other search engines when it was absent from Google.
No problem? at all?
Suppose Google indexes the hidden text, and a user looking for "flourescence of unmitigated widgets" finds it in one of your answers ... goes to the page, and searches for "flourescence." Doesn't find it. Result: one frustrated user.
Suppose Google doesn't index the hidden text. You're missing out on all of the luminowidget researchers who were looking for just that text.
Either way, this seems like an All-Round Bad Idea Exemplified.
hutcheson makes a great point - something I had never even thought of. Wow, it's great to learn something new.
You should maybe go the old route of providing a link to an anchor further down the page. That way it's all visible.
Alternatively, you could very easily increase the content of your website and its traffic: provided you have enough content with each question and response, place each one on a separate page and you give yourself the opportunity to write ten (more specific) title tags. These tags will be ten more tags with real content and be all the more topic-searchable than what one title tag may have done for ten faq's.
Just a thought!
Oh, and the css for this page is all contained within the head, no external file in this instance
I believe hutcheson's point was more about usability, rather than google-penalty.
Your post though does assure me more and more that my original fears were misdirected.
I believe hutcheson's point was more about usability, rather than google-penalty (that in itself is another discussion, I think!).
Your post though does assure me more and more that my original fears were misdirected.
I wish I had the nerve to follow suit quite frankly if google continues to blatantly ignore the proliferation of CSS in the design world.
I love the way that us designers have taken on board the incredible simplicity of css design and twisted it into something horribly complicated so we can have layers shooting in all directions and text popping in and out.
Reminds me of tables it does...Except making really complex valid css sites gets us slaps on the back, rather than complex table sites which get us slaps in the faces.
I believe hutcheson's point was more about usability, rather than google-penalty.
Your post though does assure me more and more that my original fears were misdirected.
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"> so that surfers do not arrive at an answer page.
