Forum Moderators: open
I have numerous 1x1 clear .gif files used for positioning using the alt description "space." In some SE parses I've actually seen these "spaces" listed as the top 20 words on my pages. So reading that KW in alt tags can help ranking, I decided to change the alt descriptions from "space" to one or two of my KW.
The .gif files are so small that human reviewers cannot see the alt tag description with the cursor, but obviously the SE can. Besides being possibly unethical, does anyone see negative repercussion in rankings?
D C
Its a legitimate use of html and helps web page designers to meet SE robot listing programs, while still retaining a "Human Freindly" and often commercial egde to a page design and layout.
For example, Google has made it very clear that they don't care for hidden content. One of the most common ways of creating hidden links is using small 1x1 type images. From an algorithm standpoint, it's pretty easy to identify images with hyperlinks that are too small for a human to actually click on.
Small images by themselves shouldn't present a problem because it is such a common design practice, but small images that contain alt tags could possibly throw up a read flag.
If yoiu have other images on the page that display on the page, you would probably be better off including keyword rich alt tags with in them.
D C
First, an image does not require an alt tag. This is, in fact, the first time I've heard of anyone putting the word "space" in an alt tag at all. What's the point?
Regarding changing these to keywords, among other things, the word "numerous" jumps out at me. In my book, this would be spam.
I'd consider what alt tags are supposed to be used for... to provide a description of images in browsers when the graphics are turned off. If we then enhance this text with keywords and we're not excessive about it, and this gives us some slight search boost, that's probably OK.
As WebGuerilla suggests, stick to images that display on the page.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "require". Major browsers will certainly render the page without alt attributes in the image tag. But transitional HTML 4.0 does require an alt attribute, even if it's just alt="". It's been one of the most common error messages I get when I try to use the W3C validator.
W3C Reference [w3.org]
Well, first - this is incorrect. The description "space" may not be the best choice, but according to W3C standards the alt attribute is required in img tags. I know that when I download webpages to my cell phone, I like to read what images I am missing.
Also, I am not replacing these "spaces" with arbitrary terms, but using appropriate and specific KW that describe the content of the page.
Thanks,
D C
