Hidden text ban triggered in error?

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Hidden text ban triggered in error?

White text on .JPG on white background

Phil_Payne

4:11 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I found a site that seems to be banned. Not one of mine. I can't see anything obvious but ...

The <body> sets a background of "#ffffff" and then applies a fairly dark .JPG to the entire page.

The style sheet has a number of definitions of text with an explicit "#ffffff".

Is it possible that the Googlebot is seeing the BGCOLOR and the stylesheet text colour but not taking the .JPG into account, thereby deluding itself into thinking the site is hiding text white-on-white?

stajer

5:12 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

My guess would be that it is probably not banned, but because the entire page is a jpg there is no significant spiderable/indexable text and therefore won't rank for anything.

arran

5:20 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi Phil,

...seems to be banned

How are you arriving at this conclusion?

arran.

Phil_Payne

6:23 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

a) The site is NOT just a .JPG - it has a BGCOLOR of "#ffffff" but a .JPG defined as background. The style sheet defines several sorts of white text and this is used COPIOUSLY and FREELY all over the JPG. LOADS of text. It's a bit heavy on HTML, to be honest, but it doesn't bother the othe rsearch engines.

b) It's happily indexed (it's a non-competitive site with some unique keywords) in Lycos and Yahoo. Even the site: search doesn't find it in Google - five months after submission.

And yes, it HAS links, and a submission, and a sitemap, and passes validation with zero errors.

Don't bother stickying me for the URL - I've forgotten it. I found it browsing in the Usenet Google groups.

[edited by: tedster at 7:23 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2006]

jomaxx

6:32 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

IMO Google wouldn't give out any penalties for hidden text without a manual check. When combined with CSS, Javascript, DHTML, image backgrounds, etc., there are just too many ways that offbeat markup can be used to legitimate effect. Probably at most the site got flagged for manual review.

[edited by: tedster at 7:23 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2006]

SincerelySandy

6:59 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I found a site that seems to be banned. Not one of mine.

Do't bother stickying me for the URL - I've forgotten it. I found it browsing in the Usenet Google groups.

Even the site: search doesn't find it in Google - five months after submission.

I don't mean to be a pain or put you on the spot, but I'm curious to know how you know when this site that is not yours, was submitted somewhere.

I'm also curious to understand how a banned site that you just "came accross" and is not yours, is of any interest to you? It seems like someone elses problem. Am I missing something?

Phil_Payne

8:36 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Pure research - I'm still on a learning curve which - judging by the volatility of Google's algorithms - is not going to end soon.

The thread is over in google.public.support.general and the thread title is "Excluded ( Censored? ) by Google".

The site has absolutely NOTHING to do with me. That should be pretty easy to verify, since my sites are pretty easy to find.

tedster

9:20 pm on Jan 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I agree with jomaxx -- that hidden text theory is just plain wrong-headed. If the site is not even three months old, I'll bet that the infamous "signs of quality" are still a bit thin.