Will this get me punished?

[fmonk]

I'm using a JS breadcrumb extension on my site. It lists the location of the user like so:
Home ¦ dir ¦ subdir ¦ page title.

I use it on all my pages, but on some of my most popular I've decided to use graphics in place of the breadcrumb page title text, to do so I use CSS to make the crumb title non-displaying and invisible, then I put the graphic title in place. So I get:
Home ¦ dir ¦ subdir ¦ my graphic title

I'm not trying to spam, it's just a work-around that so I can use graphics where I want but will google understand?

[candidboy]

Dear fmonk,

Well the case with google is that for some time even the hidden text will seem to work, but one day suddenly you get caught. Similiarly layers and css tricks seems to work right now with google, but I am sure google will catch up one day.

My advice will be to stay away from this, as google or any other search engine will take it as a spam, no matter what your intentions are.

Hope this helps :)

[fmonk]

<sigh>
Unfortunately it does help. Now I'm gonna have to come up with another way, the only thing I can thing of is to change the JS so it always looks for a graphic in the subdir, which means I'll have to make a a few hundred graphics or just stick to text only titles.

What a nightmare.

Any other ideas out there?

[JamesR]

So is CSS floating the graphic over the text? Is the invisible text indexible by a spider?

[fmonk]

The breadcrumb extension uses css to define its look. You can use one css selector to define the way directory names are displayed and another one to define how the title is displayed.

On pages that I have a graphical title I define the css like so
.title{display:none;visibility:hidden}
so all I'm left with is the directory names, I then slap in an image.

Spiders, and browsers that have JS disabled, don't see the breadcrumbs at all but since the graphic is outside the JS so it does show.

Spiders will see the CSS definition but not the JS code that calls it.

I hope that answers the question, and Sorry if it's an overblown explanation.

(edited for clarification)