1x1 image

are they really that bad?

[matthias]

I read on WW that google penalizes all 1x1 images. If that's true, it would be really unfair. 1x1 images were widely used for design and they are sometimes useful to log users (and for spider traps!). In fact, I just started to include some javascript code, wich loads an 1x1 gif (without a link) on every page to get more detailed statistics and I will continue doing it for two reasons:

1) I don't believe that google will penalize me. C'mon, they are clever enough for this.

2) Even if they do, that's there problem. They need quality content to work. It's there job to find the quality and if they fail, it's there fault and if all the webmasters would start thinking more about usefulness than about google the web (_and_ google) would be an even better place. <added>I can have ideals, can I? :-)</added>

Anyone want to disagree? :-) Some things must be said. Sometimes, if I read all these SEO threads, I become furious. :-)

[mack]

I think the big issue over 1x1 images is because some sites where using these images as image links to other sites in an attempt to pass PR on.

I dont think google will come down hard on 1x1 images in general, just the ones that are spamming by trying to hide links.

It would seam very harsh for Google to penalise sites for using 1x1's because as you say they can be used for design. I think Google should penalise 1x1'a used as image links because they are only there to fool the spiders and are of no real use to users.

[Susanne]

Using a 1X1 image is the only way I am able to make a dropdown menu layer "disappear" on mouseOut. But the image (shim) is enlarged in the html to cover the whole menu, however in the image file it is only 1X1 pixel.

I asked around extensively before I decided to use this technique and decided that as long as I don't have any hidden links on this image it should be safe. The site in question was launched in November 2001 and so far I haven't had any indications of problems in search engines due to it.

[nutsandbolts]

Unlinked 1x1 pixels as filler images (for tables etc) are fine and always have been. It's only when you use them as a method of hidden linking that problems can often begin.

is it just me, or does my grammer suck?

[edited by: nutsandbolts at 9:10 am (utc) on Sep. 29, 2002]

[GoogleGuy]

matthias, you've got the right idea. Assume that Google is doing the reasonable thing. :) We wouldn't care about 1x1 filler pixels--everybody uses those to ensure proper layout. And using them for tracking (e.g. extreme-dm) is pretty logical too; nobody takes exception to that. It's when someone uses 1x1 images as hidden href links that users don't see that it starts to get spammy.

[Jane_Doe]

>matthias, you've got the right idea. Assume that Google is doing the reasonable thing. We wouldn't care about 1x1 filler pixels--everybody uses those to ensure proper layout. And using them for tracking (e.g. extreme-dm) is pretty logical too

What does extreme-dm mean?

[nutsandbolts]

Extreme-dm is a Web service that gives you free stats for your Web site such as hits/views etc etc (Their tracking code uses a pixel on your Web page to do this...as well as other options)

[Jane_Doe]

> Extreme-dm is a Web service that gives you free stats for your Web site such as hits/views etc etc (Their tracking code uses a pixel on your Web page to do this...as well as other options)

Okay, thanks n&b. I assume this means the affliate networks that use the 1x1 for tracking would be okay, too?

[nutsandbolts]

Such as Commission Junction? Yep, you should have no problems with that.