Is image alt text worth vouching for?

[shaunm]

Hello All,

I don't seem to understand image alt texts when it comes to backlinks. The topic and the details I find to be vague with no proper evidence and case studies. So, do you really think the alt text carries the same weight as the textual links? Also, I believe the purpose of alt text is for the screen readers initially and search engines to understand the image better (image search). So, the alt text on page A leading to page B could only help the page A in terms of image optimization and ranking right? If that's so, how come using exact keyword in alt texts is considered spam for page B? It shoud never affect page B right?

Thanks for the help!

[Andy Langton]

how come using exact keyword in alt texts is considered spam

Put simply, because it's highly unlikely that your image is best described as "shiny blue keyword" - using keywords instead of sensible alternate text is what can lead to problems. Because users don't typically see the alt text, the temptation might be to use this as crude keyword-hiding mechanism. But it isn't always considered spam - it depends on the context.

As far as Google is concerned, alt attributes contain readable text - so you should treat your page as if the images were entirely replaced by the alt. So, your exact match keyword link in alt text is not very different from an exact match keyword anchor that isn't in alt text.

[Storiale]

Andy nailed it. my policy: Describe the image and include a word or two that matters for SEO. Back in the day (When sites were designed with tables and shims) I added alt tags for each shim on every page and was banned for 18 months for it. But that began my quest for knowing everything about SEO. Still working on it 8 years later.

[EditorialGuy]

I think it's a matter of common sense:

If your image is, say, an arrow, then labeling it "arrow" is reasonable but labeling it "fuzzy blue widget" is spam.

If, on the other hand, the image is a photo of a fuzzy blue widget, then labeling it "fuzzy blue widget" makes sense and shouldn't be annoying to people who use screen readers or to Google.

[tangor]

alt is supposed to benefit accessibility issues primarily. Do know that gamers of the system generally get caught ... and g, in particular, is far more savvy in this regard and loss of rank sometimes bites and folks aren't always sure why .... or how ... g did the deed.

Most times I've worked on sites under such loss I've found all the "hidden, that is not visible on screen" text such as alt has been keyword stuffed, shifting the page weight the wrong direction. Deleting all that has allowed a few sites to gain a 40-60% recovery, but never back to where they were.

[graeme_p]

Use it as it is supposed to be used - for accessibility. If it is a link, describe the link (e.g. an arrow may be "next page", your logo "sitename home").

If it is not a link, and not needed to understand surrounding text, a lot of the time you should have "", [w3.org...]

[JS_Harris]

Without naming names I remember a mega brand site taking a rankings hit because they stuffed product descriptions in the alt section of a 1x1 tracking pixel. The descriptions were not for the items on the page but from a base keyword search rss feed from their own site. ie: the text in the tracking pixel alt tag did not match any text on the page which likely frustrated visitors from search a bit.

It worked, but not for long. Don't stuff image alt text. On a scale of 1-100 of how important alt text is in terms of getting real visitors onto your site I'd rank it a 5, or maybe a 7 for good luck. It takes a lot more image impressions than text based web impressions to get the same amount of traffic from Google since they redesigned image search.

[shaunm]

Thank you all. My primary concern though is about how exactly Google finds it as keyword stuffing. What if I own a business named as 'Boston Seo Agency' and use that in the company logo or in other places whichever is appropriate? Also, does the image alt text carries significant value back to the linked to site at all? And will the use of 'exact keyword' in alt text get into the same penalty as 'unnatural link' hit by Penguin?

[Andy Langton]

Also, does the image alt text carries significant value back to the linked to site at all? And will the use of 'exact keyword' in alt text get into the same penalty as 'unnatural link' hit by Penguin?

Treat it just like any other text or a link - if it would be unnatural as plain text, it will be unnatural as alternate text.

Take a look at the "stripped" cache for your page, e.g.:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.example.com&strip=1

Does the alt text look unnatural when read as just a normal part of the page?