Forum Moderators: open
I'm programmer first and a reluctant webmaster second. I'm used to having to find workarounds for bugs in Windows. Complaining to Microsoft is truly a wast of time.
It seems to me that there has been much discussion lately about panalties arising from hidden text - even to the point of pages being removed from the Google index. Since I don't use hidden text, I cannot comment from my own experience, but I can look at this issue objectively.
There are three possible policies a search engine can take when encountering hidden text/links, etc.
1: Take no special actions.
2: Ignore all such text, etc. Quite literally, pretend it isn't there.
3: Apply some sort of penalty.
Now lets look at how/why hidden text might be created.
1: As a deliberate attempt to spam search engines.
2: By accident. (Probably applies mostly to zero-length links).
3: Deliberately but without any intention to spam. For instance, a Webmaster might leave himself a todo list in white text in an empty table cell.
Now lets look at how a spammer might fool a search engine.
1: Use very bright gray text against white, etc. (Presumably search engines that worry about hidden text implement thresholds).
2: Use javascript to change background/text colors. (I imagine this can be done with tables but I've never tried it.)
Let's be realistic about this. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of a search engine being able to analyse all the javascript on a page to see if it is being used to hide text. It therefore follows that a spammer will be able to fool search engines using hidden text with no difficulty at all.
It therefore follows that applying penalties where hidden text is found is a total waste of time (if the intention is to combat spam). This just leaves two sensible policies for hidden text.
1: Take no special actions.
2: Ignore all such text, etc. Quite literally, pretend it isn't there.
Now none of this is rocket science. Indeed, if the boffins at Google can't work this out for themselves, they must be suffering from a combined IQ of a retarded chimpanzee.
So, let's see what GG has to say. Do Google boffins shuffle around on their knuckles? Judging from the mess Google is in right now it's easy to laugh and just say yes but the answer in reality is probably no. Nevertheless, given that it is child's play to use hidden text in a manner that can't be detected by search engines, I think it behoves GoogleGuy to say definitively what the policy is. After all, as I have explained, penalties are more likely to catch the innocent than the spammer.
Is it ok to email Google and ask them to look at this and reconsider or let me know what I've done wrong if that's not the problem so I can fix it. Or Google Guy will you please look at it?
Thanks in advance,
Karen
Remove the offending hidden text and wait a month. IIRC these penalties expire after a month as long as you make the fix.
Fortunately it is probably not a death sentence. You may well come back in 30 days time when the penalty has expired. I'd make sure it is clean as a whistle in the meantime.
If I was spamming I would accept the penalty with good grace.
Napoleon, we normally agree on just about everything. Although I sympathize, I can't agree with your stance here. You made a mistake and its costing you. Been there, done that and learned to try to never repeat the same mistake twice. It hurts, but it sure keeps you on your toes!
I left a page I had intended to delete on the server side once. I had correctly removed all links to it, replaced it with a new page, recoded all the other links leading to it, to point to the new page, etc ... but forgot to delete it! from the server :(
Next update, I had a +20 penalty. I scoured the site for any possible reason for a penalty and sure enough, there it was! I felt very stupid and inept.
However, I find it difficult to blame Google or any other search engine for a mistake I made. I knew that orphan pages were a no no ... yet I went and did it to myself.
As unfair as you may feel your penalty is, at least you know (thanks to GG) that you will be redeemed in the next update ... if not sooner. Who knows, maybe one of the things Google is working on is to re-include those sites which have removed the offending bits by using the freshbot.
Hang in there and good luck! There is light at the end of the tunnel.
No, I don't really blame Google... just trying to divert attention from myself I guess. A really stupid error - and yes, I will learn from it (I guarantee I will ALWAYS visually check any links I create from now on).
The 30 day redemption is indeed a real plus. I think the art is to find the positive in these things. I have already started upgrading the design of the site and adding more to it. When it comes back it should be better and stronger than before. I'm just relieved that that the return is reasonably predictable (and I suppose fair), and not really my 'Waterloo'.
It was a real shock at first though. I still can't believe I actually missed it!
Yes, I'll work through it. Thank's for the encouragement.
Lets all not panic and go blaming ouselves - remember this algo is running on incomplete data.
I lost a couple of sites that are 'clean as a whistle' - they'll be back next time without me changing a thing.
If not I will come back here and ritually humiliate myself;)
First, I did not mean to give the impression that I was 100%. After studying the pages for a while that was the only common trend I could spot. There are a couple of other cases I have seen with a similar result. If this is the case, it is probably a filter as opposed to a manual ban (there is actually no way it is a manual ban). On the sites that I have control of I changed some of the pages so there can be no mistake as to if the text is to light and left some pages the same. That is the only thing I have changed, so now I will watch the results.
I am not against a hidden text algo, I am actually all for it. I do however like to make some text light as it looks nicer in places and can make the page less busy.
>If not I will come back here and ritually humiliate myself
Please stickymail me with the URL of the thread so that I can observe this when it happens. ;)
1) That begs the question of whether something invisible can be considered "expression" in a visual context.
2) Even if you have complete freedom of expression, it does not follow that anyone else is obliged to publicize what you say.
Please stickymail me with the URL of the thread so that I can observe this when it happens
You need to replace 'when' with 'in the unlikely event that it ever';)
But sure, I'll make sure I post when my sites return, and I promise I won't touch them between now and then.
a, does what I have described count as hidden text b, if I am banned how long for and c) the other sites belonging to my company which are linked to from this site, will they also be penalized. What should I do?
Answer to A) Even if you use huge amount of hidden text on purpose to trick Big G nothing will happen, be sure of that if you don't believe me send me a sticky and I will tell you (and show you) how to get top ten without any optimization but just hidden text.
Even is some body sends 100's of email to whatever quality email address you will still see the hidden text site, ranking over other good sites.
Even if anyone fax, phone, scream on the top of the voice (like I am doing here) nothing will happen.
Answer to B) Create 1000’s of sub domains, multiple domains - cross link them together create whatever rank artificially, use guest-books, link farms, etc. Ya! But don’t create a clean good site or you will get banned also people who will link to you without any SPAM techniques will get banned.
Answer to C) You should focus on learning various holes in Big G you will search for one you will find billions and use them to top the SERPs like ever spammer does but never create a clean site or it might get banned!
If Google can automatically detect hidden text than they should IGNORE the text, not give it any benefits, and pretend like its not there. Worse case scenerio...a slight penalty.
The only people who like this strict rule are the people who want less sites in the index. Less sites mean less people for them to compete with.
Google are not the web police.
When I search for "brown widgets" than I want every site selling brown widgets and couldn't care less whether one of those sites had hidden text.
A lot of threads from this forum are in the Google index. What if users decided to play a trick and change their text colors to white to reflect the background on the threads? Will Webmasterworld be banned as well.
This is just silly.
At the moment, some get banned after a spamreport and some don't. Supposedly the new 'hidden text' algo will be run on sites that have been spamreported. In theory, more sites will get banned than previously, but there will still be good number that don't.
They will get better at this as they improve their filters. Now they have 'pinned their colurs to the mast', they can't afford to mess it up completely.
You will probably always be able to get round it one way or another - but they will make it more difficult, and that is all they need to do to improve the user experience. Its a gradual process of continuous improvement.
Last update is NOT a normal update. GG has stated this pretty clearly IMO - so lets not jump to conclusions just yet.
I think we need to think less 'black and white' and little more 'shades of grey'.
Instead of 'will get banned' or 'won't get banned' think 'probability of getting banned'.
shaadi
I understand that you are angry with me for doing something stupid, but you cannot possibly be as angry with me as I am with myself.
Hey buddy, I am not angry with you but angry on Big G coz of whom innocent people like you suffer :(
As John_Creed mentioned its just silly!
And please be clam you won't get banned you can sticky your URL to me or any mods here :) We will be pleased to help you out...
Welcome to the forum, Please Be Gentle.
As Shaadi states, you are probably safe if you fix the problem immediately.
BTW
Stickymail is our internal e-mail system - see the 'you have mail' link at the top of the page.
<<In banning the use of hidden text, without a doubt, Google are restricting freedom of expression.>>
1) That begs the question of whether something invisible can be considered "expression" in a visual context.2) Even if you have complete freedom of expression, it does not follow that anyone else is obliged to publicize what you say.
Firstly, whinging and complaining very rarely achieves anything. Pointing out that a company might be breaking US law at least stands a small chance of making them reconsider.
However, since I have a few minutes, I shall explain my thinking.
In order to get a page to show up in a search for all relevant keywords/key phrases (including alternative words/spellings) all these words need to appear on the page (barring some dubious practices). Also, whilst most search engines may do a good job with singulars, and plurals, and phrase analysis, hyphens, etc, etc, some may not so it is reasonable to allow for this.
It therefore follows, if you are using simple techniques, you will either have to write convoluted and inconsistent bodytext to ensure all words appear on the page, or you will have to use keyword lists somewhere. (You used to be able to rely on meta tags for your keyword lists but many search engines ignore these now because they may contain spam! - or at least it is often said that they ignore them so you must allow for it being true).
As I have said previously, it is a matter of style and personal choice whether the keyword list should be hidden or not. My CHOICE, it to keep such lists visible, others may wish to do otherwise but are now unable to exercise their previous right to choose.
With regard to the law, it really comes down to this. Is a citizen's right to self-expression limited to content or does it include style. In its simplest form, does a US citizen (I live in the UK) have the right to say whatever he wants in blue text, red text, Verdana, Arial, etc, or does he/she simply have the right to say what he wants but only in the style approved by other people (e.g. governments or search engines).
My understanding, though I may be wrong, is that the US constitution protects not justs a citizens right to say what he/she wants but also protects the right to the manner of that expression e.g. poetry vs prose.
If I am correct, then there is a very good chance that that Google's stand on hidden text is illegal (at least in the US).
Now, I imagine that someone out there reading this has studied law or has a brother/sister/uncle/father/friend/wife, etc that is a lawyer, so someone should be able to offer a more informed opinion than mine - so how about it?
As for the issue of companies not being obliged to publish what you write, this is true. However, I doubt very much that Google would want to test that in court because even though they might win, a change in the law would almost certainly follow. Also, Google, in fighting such a case would attract a great deal of bad publicity. My feeling is that Google would win the battle (in court) but loose the war (in the hearts and minds of the people).
In order that a search engine such as Google be taken seriously, it has to convince people that it has no political affiliations, no opinions as to right and wrong (beyond common law) etc. This can only be true if it exercises no more than the absolute minimum of editorial control.
And for those who like paradoxes, think about this:-
Google's rules allow me fill a page with F**k, S**T, C**T, etc, etc. However, if I were to place such a list of obscene words in hidden text, they would ban it. Now I ask you, does that sound sensible?
They are just exercising their right to display sites that they think are relevant, same as I do when I decide to add links to the links page on my mom-and-pop widgets site.
Google isnt breaking the law by doing this because they dont have to let you in the index if they do not want. Its a free service and they can do what they want with it.
I asked for an informed opinion.
If I open a shop and for some reason refuse to sell my wares to, say, people in wheelchairs, the chances are I'll be prosecuted. The defence of "It's my shop, I'll sell to whoever I want and refuse to sell to whoever I want" will fail in most countries in the western world.
The principle that "with power comes responsibility" is generally recognised by lawyers. Apparently, it is not yet recognised by Webmasters.
As for the argument that it's a free service
A) Google are presumably making big bucks. If there were no content freely provided by us they wouldn't make a penny.
B) If I were to place an advert in a paper that read "Free T-Shirts for white folks" I'd be in hot water. The issue of whether or not a service is free is utterly irrelevant.
And finally, the issue that they have the right to refuse service, etc. etc. Such rights do exist but they are limited by law. If I run a bar, it is my right to refuse to serve anyone I choose. However, if I choose to refuse to serve anyone wearing a turban I'll be prosecuted for racial discrimination.
When you run a business, you are obliged to operate by a different set of standards than those that apply to individuals. This is the issue of "power and responsibility" that I mentioned earlier. Apparently, this concept is alien to some webmasters, but I assure you it is not alien to lawyers who make a very good living out it. (Ever heard of ambulance-chasers. Without the principle of "power and responsibility" they'd be out of business.)
They are just exercising their right to display sites that they think are relevant, same as I do when I decide to add links to the links page on my mom-and-pop widgets site.
Suppose I search for the word "religion". Suppose someone at Google were to take the view that Buddhism is not a religion ("it's a philosophy") and therefore exclude all sites on buddhism from the results even if they contain the keyword "religion". Would you think that was right? Do you think that users would think that was right?
Now this is an extreme example but I say they do not have the right to make such editorial judgements. You, apparently, believe that they do have such rights.
Do I believe that you have the right to editorial control on your website?
ABSOLUTELY YES.
Do I believe that that your competitors have right to appear in search engine listings with you?
ABSOLUTELY YES.
Do I believe that the most popular search engine in the world (or any other general-purpose search engine) has the right to abitrarily ban sites for not meeting their exacting standards?
ABSOLUTELY NO
Of course, if a search engine advertises the fact that it only covers bird-watching, then I would accept it has the right not display my site on, say, garden furniture. However, Google is a general-purpose search engine and does not have the right to make abitrary decisions over which sites meet its standards and which don't.
However, let's be realistic for a moment. If Google's content analysis was so fantastic, it would not need to make stupid, simplistic decisions to ban or not to ban a site now would it?
>>The principle that "with power comes responsibility" is generally recognised by lawyers. Apparently, it is not yet recognised by Webmasters.
>>
Also many people seem to forget that Google is the equivalent of a monopoly. Just because they currently control the majority of search engine traffic does not mean that they can "bully" us around.
That's the way I look at it when I see Google trying to police the web with their silly rules.
If I open a shop and for some reason refuse to sell my wares to, say, people in wheelchairs, the chances are I'll be prosecuted. The defence of "It's my shop, I'll sell to whoever I want and refuse to sell to whoever I want" will fail in most countries in the western world.
how does your argument fit in with the fact that a website using hidden text for the purpose of SEO may severely limit a blind persons ability to access it through a screen reader program, as the hidden text will make little or no sense whatsoever when read aloud?
just a thought...
[edited by: benihana at 2:07 pm (utc) on May 30, 2003]
I asked for an informed opinion.
It is informed I asked someone at Google.
The standard answer will be "by rendering the page".
