Single pixel images question

How does google treat spammy use of these?

[Dreamquick]

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but a site search was less helpful than I hoped for.

I'm trying to understand something about how Google deals with single pixel images, specifically their alt attributes.

I spotted a site which ranks really well and I'm trying to understand a little more about how it does it.

The trickster is that it has 20 or so 1x1 pixel images on it, each of which has been loaded with a key phrase which is relevant to their business but not to this page.

My question is about how google treats such things, specifically;

Do they simply ignore it as a depreciated technique along with the double title tags, keywords embedded in comments etc?

Do they automatically penalise it?

Do they only penalise this type of thing after a human review?

Do they even care about such things?

- Tony

[ILLstyle]

I tired the same technique but with only 5 or so.
It did seem to work a little and I was not penalized for it. I just recently removed them from my site because I feel they are a little too spam like for me.

[Dreamquick]

Thanks for the feedback ILLstyle, if anyone else wants to add their opinion I'm still listening.

I agree these look spammy which goes against my normal rules (I feel that a human reviewer might penalise them for it) and am hoping that they don't factor in to the rank, but I'm really looking for some concensus on what is a grey-ish area.

- Tony

[Spica]

Dreamquick:

I am convinced that Google's antispam algo is not yet capable of spotting these. I know of one site that relies heavily on this technique. Each of their pages has about five to ten single-pixel images, with keyword-filled alt tags or links. They also have part of the black background of their front page composed of individual black rectangles with alt tags. This site ranks #1 for their targeted keywords not only in Google, but also in all of the other search engines, and has been in this top position for many months. Therefore, if you don't mind doing this sort of things, go for it, it works!

[EarWig]

More information can be found at
[webmasterworld.com...]

EW

[Dreamquick]

Thanks EW,

Quite interesting comment by GoogleGuy there;

What *would* hurt is [...] 48 1x1 links leading to doorway domains. Our hidden text/link algorithms spotted it automatically

So they are capable of spotting linked versions of this, so its a fair bet they could see content and/or keyword stuffed IMGs too - by the sounds of it they penalise such behaviour.

- Tony

[HocusPocus]

Would I be wrong in thinking that a SE spider would come along see
<img spacer.gif alt="keyword stuff">
and either map
the image "spacer" to "keyword stuff".
or ignore it.

If the spider continues and finds
<img spacer.gif alt="other keyword stuff">
it would either
1.assume spam,
2.just use the first mapping
3.do another mapping from image "spacer" to "other keyword stuff".
4.ignore It

I have no idea but I would guess at 1 or 2.

I would say this technique is a definate no-no esp, with regard accessibility, and old hat. I don't think Google even indexes alt tags anymore.