Google Ditches IMG Alt Text

Inevitable, but sad.

[ciml]

During January, the Fresh listings weren't matching words in alt text or showing them in snippets, unless they were in a link. Since the update, it seems to be the same for the main listings. Note: a page with "keyword" only in unlinked alt text may still match due to anchor text from incoming links.

IMG alt text has been used for stuffing hidden text for as long as I can remember. Still, it's a shame to loose this key element of allowing robot accessibility for image heavy pages, just as business and even government bodies are starting to take Web accessibility seriously.

With any luck, Google will find that it wasn't a major spam problem and set things back (as they did after ignoring guestbook links for a while this time last year).

[GoogleGuy]

Sounds like a couple votes for alt text and a couple votes against? I'm not sure I see a consensus on whether we do index it, let alone whether we should.. :)

[Hollywood]

Googleguy any possibility that you make a comment on my issues? Do you or do you not want to apply a basis for the disabled to be able to search properly in regards to alt text? If one optimizes in order to make index able text so that the disabled are able to find appropriate results would it not cause harm towards the disabled if the non image linked images do not index into an algo that such ALT data?

I find this interesting?

Appreciate your comments.

All best

X-Global Test Engineer, (Forbes 50 Top Ten org.)

[jomaxx]

Hollywood, I don't see your point at all. How does being able to search alt text help the disabled any more than anyone else? They use the same search results as the rest of us.

In fact the change may even do the disabled some good, if it encourages webmasters to use plain text instead of pictures for everything.

[Namaste]

GoogleGuy, you should index it, but tweak your algo to reduce the relevancy of the non-link images. Anyway, you need to index it for your image search; which may I add is not throwing up satisfactory results from lack of published guidelines.

[Hollywood]

Special computers for many of the handicaped read out load alt text tags so they are able to navigate, remember they cant see that much or need assistance by the system to read those tags that are written correctly.

One example is www.risepartners.com alt tags are for these handicaped peoples.

I had to make sure I did not optimize the alt tags and keep them descriptive to exactly the point of the images etc.

========================================================

Moment of Silece - Space Shuttle Columbia - God bless the family of all those lost.

[stevew]

-----
Good_Vibes :
What you are forgetting SteveW is the other 93 factors that Google considers.
-----
Absolutely. And I wouldn't pretend to know them.
I was just trying to help by summarising what I've picked up from my reading, listening and work.

What I really forgot was to number the points correctly -- they should have been 1) to 8) --- that's what comes through posting in a hectic day.

-----
ciml :
stevew, some of our results are similar but some are quite different.
-----
They are my observations only -- what are yours?

-----
GGG :
a consensus on whether we do index it, let alone whether we should..
-----
Don't know if you do, but that was my best guess.
As for whether you should ... for my 2 pence (UK, y'see) I'd say yes to indexing alt text that describes the image but no to anything that's too obviously tied in with keywords. Maybe only when there isn't much overall text content on the page. But definitely some kind of consideration when an image is used for a link.

[GoogleGuy]

Oh man. That's awful news about Columbia.. I'm going to go read about it more. I started writing about alt text, but my heart's not in it. I'll just include what I had below and I'll talk to everyone more later. :(

---------------------------------------------------

Hollywood, I agree that alt text is great for accessibility, and that we should use that information to the degree we can. Google tries to make its site very accessible to text browsers for just this reason--and we'd appreciate any accessibility advice about the google.com site.

The fact that alt text is usually hidden means that it's open to abuse, and Google has to take that into account when we're scoring pages. But I think we strike a pretty good balance on alt text.

[ciml]

Bad news about Columbia [webmasterworld.com] and those onboard.

-

Hollywood, I'm in two minds on whether Google's change is good or bad for disabled accessibility.

On the one hand people interested in robot usability want Google to be able to understand the words on the page, so they are encouraged to facilitate non visual use even if they aren't clued up on accessible Web design. This is good for visually impaired users.

On the other hand, people have been taking advantage of alt text for keyword stuffing. This is bad for visually impaired users.

The "inevitable, but sad" subtitle for this thread isn't meant to criticise Google's decision; it's unfortunate that they have to make these kinds of choices.

stevew:
> what are yours?

I don't see any bold weighting in this month's index.

[Hollywood]

Googleguy

Just be sure that the Google website Algo takes into account this disabled persons angle on how their browsers read to them the information on the page and how it indexes sites that will benefit a disabled person by using the alt info.

I had used an example earlier www.risepartners.com sort of simple but made for disabled persons.

God bless all today

[toddb]

Google does not take in the images so they only have the alt text was my understanding. Sort of seems like an odd decision to reduce their relevency. maybe reduce the number of words they grab form it? And if someone goes nuts doesn't their page look very odd to the surfer with paragraphs jumping out everywhere? "WidgetWorld's divider image"

[TheDoctor]

europeforvisitors: I try to keep my own alt text simple and descriptive ("Tower of London photo" or "Tower of London"), but sometimes I wonder if I should even go that far when my photos nearly always have captions. If I have a photo of the Tower of London with a caption that tells what it is, maybe the alt text should just read "photo."

- Have a look at your page using Lynx and see if it makes sense. I would suggest that this gives a good idea of what is legitimate ALT text and what isn't

[Macguru]

ALT ouside of links is indexed in fresh pages in this cycle. Is it a sign for next index?

[Macguru]

Oops! Sorry guys. The string was repeated in a LINKED alt tag further down in page. Sorry for the false alarm!

[Powdork]

I always provide alt text with my images both for accessibility and for search engines and I will continue to. If the image deserves to be on the page, naming it will usually introduce keywords and help usability.
But one thing no one has mentioned here is the internet disabled; those that don't know Google images exists and search for <photo of picturesque thing>. Why shouldn't alt text that says <photo of picturesque thing> bring a match? I often search for images on regular Google when I keep finding the same thing renamed a thousand ways on Google images. It shouldn't be hard to limit the amount of abuse by limiting the amount of characters or some other filter.
And no, I can't always put the same thing in a caption because sometimes (always) I do use captions for marketing.

[World Wide Wonder]

From the general gist of things here, am i right in understanding that the ALT text of an image WILL NOT be read by Google but the image is a link to another page, the ALT text WILL be read by Google?

Have i got that much correct?

Thanks.