white text links in white table

[nippi]

Can google spot as spam, a white text link in a white table, where the page background is blue?

[Brett_Tabke]

no, but your competition can...

[rfgdxm1]

Good point Brett. ;) Although, I've seen a surprisingly large number of amateur sites using this sort of trickery. Sometimes even leaving things like big blocks of keyword stuffed spam text *visible*. I can only figure they found some bad advice about site design on the web somewhere. My point being that just because a site lacks actual competition doesn't necessarily mean they won't cheat search engines.

[nippi]

SO.

the answere is......

I am fine to do it, google won't spot it, but I have to worry about my competition dobbing me in?

[rogerd]

Nippi, welcome back from lurker-world. Be aware that Google has been publicly discussing a crackdown on hidden text lately, so I wouldn't recommend using it on a domain you expect to use in the long term.

[driesie]

evil! :o

[pageoneresults]

Why do they have to be white on white? You are not hiding them correct? You are referring to a page that has a background of blue and then you have tables that may be blue with white reverse links, is that correct?

If that is not correct, then hiding text links as others have mentioned in this thread may not be recommended.

One thing I do to avoid this situation is to make sure that I have no other colors for text that are the same as my page background color. For example, if I have #ffffff set as the page background color, then I will use #eeeeee for text links that are reversed out of a dark color, like a blue cell background that has white text reversed.

Here is the problem I see with automatically filtering for same color text and page backgrounds...

Many designers use the reverse effect (white text against dark background). They'll set their page background color as white. This would immediately flag the page as hiding text when in fact it is not.

As Brett mentioned above, Google does not detect this automatically but, probing eyes do! Hiding anything these days adds some element of risk.

[diddlydazz]

Hiding text is naughty!

Non-competitive market:

if you are in a non-competitive market then you shouldn't need to use hidden text to get good results.

Competitive Market:

If you are in a competitive market then be very careful as you will more than likely get a spam report filed against your site.

Not worth the risk if you ask me IMHO

Dazz

[GoogleGuy]

LOL. I think a better statement is probably:
"Google probably can, and your competition definitely can."

:)

[WebFusion]

Having said that...

I'm aware that google is quickly moving towards the maximum automation possible regarding filering/penalizing spam sites (with good reason), but it appears some of the most obvious cases still remain (despite being reported) month after month.

For example, I reported two sites that are using hidden text (white on white) to boost their rankings over a month ago. To date, not only do they both remain, but as it stands, one obvious offender has moved (on www-fi.google.com) to the number one search result, in a highly competitive search category.

What's worse, not only is the offense obvious, it even blatantly appears in the "cached" version of the page at google.

So....I suppose my question is...isn't the "obvious" (i.e. easily detectable via google's cache) hiddent text TOS violation the easy to screen out via filters? And, if so, why do so many sites continue to "get away" with it?

Now...this isn't sour grapes, as my site sports a decent ranking that I'm happy with, considering I haven't been using any "tricks" to get there, but it just ticks me off that people are allowed to continually stack the deck in their favor through (what I consider) unethical and dishonest techniques.

[thepcstore]

I've never spammed, nor do I ever intend on doing so, but if Google can spot:

<table>
<tr>
 <td bgcolor="white"><font color="white">Spam Spam Spam</font></td>
 </tr>
</table>

then what about:

<table>
 <tr>
 <td><font class="spamText">Spam Spam Spam</font></td>
 </tr>
</table>

...Where the background color of the table is set to white in an external style sheet? Because google can't read .css files yet - can it? ;)

Just wondering...!

[dvduval]

I've also seen people using images that are the same color as the background. I know that Google often picks up 1x1 spacer.gifs, but it's a little harder for them to pick up images of differing small sizes that are used as links.

[Seattle_SEM]

Google will never catch all the forms of spam out there...an enterprising spammer can always defeat whatever google can throw at them:

<div name="someDiv">
<h1>spam, spam, spam</h1>
</div>

<script language="JavaScript">
if(navigator.appName!= "foo.bar"){
document.someDiv.backgroundColor="#000000";
// users will see white text

document.someDiv.innerHTML = "";
// oh, wait, users will see no text
}
</script>

[manilla]

What I hate is background text that is one colour and actual text that is slightly different, but still cannot be seen by the user.

Can Google detect this, or does it rely solely on spam reports?

[nippi]

the case in question is by my competition.

No, I am nto goign to do it.

I have reported them many times, but it appears google does not use spam reports to address indiviudal cases, only to build spam policy.

[WebFusion]

I guess my point is...

I know that there are obviously still ways people can "trick" google, but whay is it the the easily detectable stuff, i.e. what on white text that shows up in the google cache of the offending site, still goes either undetected and/or un-penalized?

Erik

[lordgonchar]

What about this:

Black background for the page with a gray table with black text used as a sidebar.

Will Google misinterpret this as black text on a black background? I use this on my pages - the text is clearly visible (black on gray) but will Google see my background set to black and think hidden text?

[nippi]

I have NEVER been penalised in Google for white text, that was visible regardless of page background colour.

[caustic]

There are easier ways:

<noscript>SPAM SPAM SPAM</noscript>

or <noframes>SPAM SPAM SPAM</noframes>

The point is, it is wrong, and you will be found out eventually, if not by Google then by a customer who becomes aware of your unethical methods. If you have no conscience then go ahead, knock yourself out.

[edited by: heini at 11:40 pm (utc) on June 16, 2003]

[nippi]

As advised, it is my opposition doing it.

I havedone it only UNINTENTIONALLY and never been penalised(eg white text/black table/white background)

I have never done hiddent text in this way(white text/white table/non-white page background)

Anyway, thanks everyone for comments, I got what I thought was happening confirmed, that is, risky due to getting dobbed in and google may find it soon anyway.

[pageoneresults]

If not by Google then by a customer who becomes aware of your unethical methods.

Or by a competitor who waits for the perfect opportunity to drop URLs at any one of the more popular forums in hopes of maybe catching GoogleGuy just at the right moment and possibly having a manual penalty imposed. ;)

[nippi]

His comments suggest an unwillingness to do this.

[aaronjf]

thepcstore braught up a good point about the CSS. I have a site with a dark blue bg (just about the same blue as the standard link color) and am using CSS to make all links and text white. Will Google think this is hidden text/links?

I also pose the question about white page bg and then having tables with a dark bg color and white text. Does Google see this funny?

I just started implementing CSS on the sites I manage and did not even give hidden text a thought since to the user it is total visible.