How to define a "problem search engine result"?

I know what the term means, but what tactics are likely to be seen as a problem?

[MatthewHSE]

Now that I'm finally starting to get a handle on a few of the "finer points" of my site, it's time that I really began to study some SEO. My primary focus is to avoid using unethical or spamming techniques. But, I'm concerned that I may accidentally spam the SE's and possibly get penalized. That happened once before and I was out of the Google index for about six months. So I definitely want to be aboveboard in everything I do, and above all I don't want to make any more mistakes out of ignorance!

So, what are some of the main "spams" that one might accidentally fall into? Here are a few I'm concerned with:

Alt text and Hx tags. Say I have a heading of "All about Widgets." Right below the heading I have an explanatory paragraph. Beside the heading and paragraph, I have a little picture of a widget. If I make the alt text the same as the heading text, is that spam?

Over-use of meta tags. This is the one that I think knocked me for a loop before. Immediately after adding some keyword-rich, very long "description" and "keyword" meta tags, it was like Google just dropped me like a hot potato. I'm beginning to cautiously experiment again with meta tags, but how much is too much?

Duplicate titles or meta tags. Many of my pages are generated dynamically by perl scripts, share templates, and will often have duplicate titles or meta descriptions and keywords. It will all still be relevant, but could this be spam?

Title and first heading identical. I don't quite know how to avoid this one. I mean, they're both meant to describe the page. And yet, I've seen over and over that "duplicate content" is to be avoided at all costs. Could this be a problem?

Answers to these questions, plus any other pitfalls to avoid, would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Matthew

[Robino]

Spam is unsolicited bulk email.

If you design your site for your users, you should be ok.

[sullen]

I don't think any of the things you describe could be classed as spam, as long as each bit is relevant.

To me, spam is repetetive content that detracts from the user's experience of the site (and that is how I understood the Search Engines' position too.

Are you sure the site that got dropped before was dropped for the reasons you think it was?

[Receptional]

Wasn't the original SPAM standing for "some product akin to Meat"? Or something like that?

If so, I think the acronym still applies.

Dixon.

[MatthewHSE]

Spam is unsolicited bulk email.

Surely a senior member like you has heard of spamming the search engines! ;-) Thanks for the advice about designing for the user. That's what I've made my primary focus for the past three months at least, and it seems to have worked. I'm finally starting to see some traffic from the SE's in my logs, which is a first for me.

Are you sure the site that got dropped before was dropped for the reasons you think it was?

Not 100% certain, but my site had a PR of 6 at the time. As soon as I added those meta tags, the PR dropped to 0. I'd been #1 for some terms, but immediately I could not even be found for those terms. Even searching for some specific phrases returned no results. The meta tags were all I had changed. The timing was certainly interesting.

[Brett_Tabke]

There is no spam - there are only problem search engines.

SE's have rarely talked about what would be problem for them. What they do talk about is on their own pages for you to read.

I'd guess 95% of what webmasters think are problems for sites like Google - are not. Almost every "problem" we have seen brought up in the Google forum has been a problem with the search engine and not a problem with a site.

It is why we don't do problem page reports around here, because they are most often wrong and only stand to hurt some webmaster.

> Alt text

They should be used effectively as intended. Reread what is on the w3c about alt and title tags. If a search engine is going to include nonprinting characters in their search engine, then how they are used are their business.

>and Hx tags.

They can't even get their own pages to validate [webmasterworld.com] - let alone stand as a critic of yours. Obviously, se's are some of the last people we with to stand on style issues.

Use them as appropriate for your audience.

> Over-use of meta tags.

again - nonprinting characters used exclusively by the se's. It is their business model - not ours.

I don't know why you would even use a meta tag today. They are the difference between position 444 and 445. Tyey will not make one bit of difference on page 1.

> Duplicate titles or meta tags.

Don't do it. Very easy to spot and penalize by a se.

> Title and first heading identical

Always do so. 90% of the net does and pages that don't are probably suspect. However, don't build duplicate pages.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 2:17 pm (utc) on May 7, 2004]

[pageoneresults]

Alt text and Hx tags.

Your alt attribute should describe the image that it is assigned to. Based on the specifications from the W3, it should be specific to the image. It is not an area to replicate an

<h>

tag or other element.

Over-use of meta tags.

Again, if you follow the suggestions from the W3 in regards to metadata, you should be fine. I doubt very seriously that they were the reason for your Google downfall.

Duplicate titles or meta tags.

I'd be more apt to believe that Google may have downgraded the site because many pages shared the same title and metadata. My research and experience show that sites that have the same title on every page do not perform well. Typically only one of those pages with the same title ranks well, the others get downgraded.

Title and first heading identical.

The W3 actually suggest that your

<title>

and first

<h>

be the same or similar. The

<title>

gives an overall summary of the page. The first

<h>

typically summarizes the first paragraph. If your content is organized properly on the page, the title and first heading usually end up being very similar if not the same.