Repeating keywords in alt and link title tags can be dangerous?

[markovald]

Repeat the same keyword 10/20 times in the same page in alt and title tags (i mean the title attribute of a href) can be dangerous?

[Walt Hartwell]

Google says:

Not so good:

<img src="puppy.jpg" alt=""/>

Better:

<img src="puppy.jpg" alt="puppy"/>

Best:

<img src="puppy.jpg" alt="Dalmatian puppy playing fetch">

To be avoided

<img src="puppy.jpg" alt="puppy dog baby
dog pup pups puppies doggies pups litter puppies dog retriever
labrador wolfhound setter pointer puppy jack russell terrier
puppies dog food cheap dogfood puppy food"/>

That area between better and best leaves a good amount of room for descriptive text.

[tangor]

Abuse is dangerous. Most of us know when the line is crossed. Forget the dollar, go with the gut you, AS A USER will accept. If OP is asking what is the breaking point all I can say is test it and see.
Then see how long it takes to get back in SE good graces after a penalty. :)

Think user first, SE second. Can't go wrong that way.

[lucy24]

Repeat the same keyword 10/20 times in the same page in alt and title tags (i mean the title attribute of a href) can be dangerous?

If your page happens to contain 10-20 pictures of puppies, it may be worse not to use same the word over and over again. I mean, if a sighted person can look at twenty pictures of puppies, then surely a non-sighted person can read the word "puppy" twenty times. Synonyms would just be confusing, and might look artificial.

:: slightly biased on this point, because I have only just finished making up alts for an ebook's 200-plus illustrations, each one meant to be an independent description even if it means saying "bearded man" or "young woman" over and over ::

[Walt Hartwell]

With all respect lucy24, a sighted person shouldn't have to see the same puppy picture 10-20 times, nor should a non-sighted person have to read "puppy" 10-20 times.

Alt tags provide contextual benefit for images that non-sighted people and search engines cannot interpret. In your example of "bearded man" or "young woman", I would question the tags. Tall young bearded man, older bearded man, young man with full beard, wispy bearded old man, middle aged bearded man with funny hat. All could be used if the images warrant.

Yes, it's work. But it is possible to fully utilize acceptable frameworks in the way they were designed to be used without going into the range of abuse that tangor mentions.

[EditorialGuy]

For alt text, "image" or "photo" shouldn't get you into trouble.

[netmeg]

Any time your question includes the words "repeat" and "keyword" in the same sentence, the answer I'd go with will be "no".

[lucy24]

a sighted person shouldn't have to see the same puppy picture 10-20 times, nor should a non-sighted person have to read "puppy" 10-20 times.

Who said anything about the same picture? And I certainly didn't mean "alt = 'puppy'" 20 times. But if you've got
alt = "basket of Pomeranian puppies"
alt = "Newfoundland puppy playing with a ball"
alt = "golden Lab puppy eating kibble"
alt = "litter of newborn Great Dane puppies"
et cetera, you've still got twenty occurrences of the same word. As with "bearded man talking to young woman at foot of stairs", "bearded man and young woman under umbrella", "young woman sketching bearded man* lying on grass" et cetera.


* I just made that up. The character doesn't have a beard. (Neither, come to think of it, does the guy on the stairs. Work with me here.)

[superclown2]

For alt text, "image" or "photo" shouldn't get you into trouble.

What earthly use would that be? The whole purpose of alt text is to tell search engines and visitors who can't see the image what it's about. I assume they already know it's an image!

[tangor]

Describing an item by its true identity will NOT get you in trouble.

"red widget model iv" is one thing

"red widget model iv from the red widget store where best red widgets can be obtained by purchasing red widgets from red widget store located 123 anystreet, anytown or click through to red widget model iv purchase page" is something else.

If there are 10 models of red widget then red widget with a model number for each is perfectly okay.

Most times this is just commonsense. A "person, place, or thing" is what it is. That descriptor is required to identify it. Placing other non-essential "keywords" in that alt text heads down a path of abuse/misuse and will be eventually noticed, and devalued in the serps.

[fathom]

Abuse = Implies rank manipulation. An image that isn't a link has limited ranking value so whether the alt is broadly descriptive or narrowly defined is likely immaterial to ABUSE.

If an image is also a link, it may indeed be more powerful to the destination page but whether that is broadly descriptive or narrowly defined still requires another tidbit "how it is used INTERNALLY vs. EXTERNALLY changes the correct answer".

[samwest]

from some big brand sites: use a single or phrase word over and over on each image and you rank #1, but you need to do it thousands of times.

[fathom]

from some big brand sites: use a single or phrase word over and over on each image and you rank #1, but you need to do it thousands of times.

HOGWASH!

It might seem that way... But deeper research will commonly show external links providing PageRank & internal links providing relatedness which are the culprits behind #1 results and the repeated "single or phrase word over and over on each images" are just placebos!

99.99% of the time.

[Walt Hartwell]

@lucy24,

I started posting really convoluted stuff and then decided that wasn't going to help anyone and it was better to work with what you started.

If we have an image, the image doesn't carry any kind of meaningful message to a search engine unless we apply some context. Alt text can help with that, but won't fix other page issues outside the image section itself.

My preference in a section dealing with "black puppies" is to apply alt text to images in that section with words appropriate to the subject matter. So images leading to a home page might actually have anchor text of "black puppy home". Images in a section with "beige puppies" would probably have links to a home page of "beige puppy home".

It's not manipulation, just topical relevance.

[lucy24]

images leading to a home page might actually have anchor text of "black puppy home". Images in a section with "beige puppies" would probably have links to a home page of "beige puppy home"

Interesting point. On some of my navigation menus I use a small image as the Home/Back link (on account of that business in web-sites-that-you-know-what dot com about "Have you ever seen another web site? Didn't think so."). For those links I don't use a descriptive alt at all ("Decorative letter B"); instead the alt is whatever the link would say if it were plain text, like "Widgets" or "Sprockets" or "Differential Oscillating Stabilizers".

In years past, I have done ebooks featuring several hundred repetitions"alt='clay pot'". If you'd seen the articles, you would understand ;)

[Walt Hartwell]

I used to believe the "correct" thing to do was use alt text to replace what would have been anchor text if I wasn't using an image. I do not believe that anymore.
clay pot is fine, but marigold in clay pot, cooking clay pot in fire, ethnic clay pot, decorated clay pot, locally made clay pot, clay pot to cook soup, family cooking clay pot all include clay pot, but also include other hopefully relevant terms.
It is a lot more work, but I think it expands the possibility of additional visitors..

[lucy24]

marigold in clay pot, cooking clay pot in fire, ethnic clay pot, decorated clay pot

Like I said, you had to be there. These were, literally, photographs of clay pots. No context, no background. I think* I also did one with a hundred stone axes. You can say "clay pot" or you can say "see text" ("see caption" is useless if the caption just gives a museum catalog number instead of a useful description); those are about the only options.

Book illustrations give a different problem because it's tempting to say "Amy sketching Laurie", "Jo and Professor Bhaer under the umbrella" etc. But the people in the drawings aren't actually wearing name tags, so if you use names instead of descriptors you're really giving less information, not more. It would be like alt-ing your puppy pictures "Rover sleeping" and "Fido eating" which doesn't exactly give your casual visitor a lot of information. (Otoh, "fluffy-chasing-bowser.jpg" is useful if you're attaching pictures in an email to your aunt, and she'd like some clue what she's going to see before clicking Load Images.)


* "I think" because I'm not not sure if I managed to unload that particular article on some other sucker.

[fathom]

An image is just that... It makes little difference to ordered ranks if it is merely communicating a picture with Google's audience (a search audience).

An image linking to itself is of no huge value. The source is of limited use to Google for sharing useful information with its audience (a search audience).

An image as a navigation breadcrumb to a destination of information is the greatest ranking value an image can have to Google for sharing information with its audience (a search audience).

Links are for the resident audience, the image just happens to be a prop. Google has a huge audience.

[Walt Hartwell]

"Rover sleeping" could be "Labrador Retriever sleeping next to a fire", "Fido eating" could be "Fido eating home-made natural dog food".
IMHO, there's a line we need to walk where we convey the information we need to convey while still providing visitors the information and resources they need. Very descriptive alt text can help your efforts, many human visitors will never notice it, and people needing the alt text should understand what the image represents.
It's not spam, but it is work.

[samwest]

HOGWASH!

The .01% is the "big brand". Please try reading before bashing every, single, time.

[fathom]

ZERO BIG BRANDS RANK because of a single word or phrase is repeated in alt="" of all their images. Your claim never hinted about one or one million and never mentioned a percentage. My claim denotes ZERO!

My previous message also denotes why.

[samwest]

^ I can provide several examples...sure it may not be the ONLY reason they rank but my original point is that they get away with such tactics, while the rest of us get penalized. But go ahead and refute it again, you seem to know it all.

[fathom]

I can jump in the air... Take a look at results and see an improvement. But to say my air jump caused that...

"Correlation does not imply causation!"

[en.m.wikipedia.org...]

BTW you can't get penalized for abuse of alt="" ... It simply looks embarrassing if that is your idea of webspam.

[samwest]

You certainly like to look at specifics when no specific was ever specified (lol). I never said JUST the alt...it is used in the description and title too, and includes a single phrase, comment or image caption. I've no need to argue it with you....you know it already.

[fathom]

from some big brand sites: use a single or phrase word over and over on each image and you rank #1, but you need to do it thousands of times.

I can certainly understand how "I" can make such a mistake with this quote.

Captions don't usually appear on images... above, below, beside sure thing.

Titles normally get repeated thousands of times on a page - is this the title element?

The Meta Title <Meta Name="Title" Content="" / > is not a ranking signal.

The tool tip title="" in the link element is not a ranking signal.

Meta descriptions don't aid ranks so even if you meant that.

I take great issue with your suggestion that you can get penalized for doing the same things that big brands do and they don't... The hidden part, the thin part, auto-generated part and the artifical part causes the penalty ...

Here's a great site for title gibberish (just a little example) which shows when you are actually making a point it can also be ok [seomofo.com...]