Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Thanks!
DC
Even though it was not relevant?
Are you referring to the information from the W3C as not being relevant to the discussion?
Anything that can't be detected by most of us including the SEs themselves.
Though I have come across a fair few with a similar approach to yours.
Anyway; pending anything new in this discussion, I'll leave you to it.
Anyway; pending anything new in this discussion, I'll leave you to it.
Nope, you're not getting off that easy.
The ball is in your court, we are waiting for you, not me. :)
I'm still trying to figure out the "relevant" comment.
And, I've poured over all the guidelines related to the elements, attributes, etc. and I couldn't find anything that says what you say. So, until I see that confirmation that this is spam, the W3C references earlier in the topic should let those who are reading know that this is valid HTML and is not classifed as bad coding practice or spam.
I don't care if Mom & Pop sites do it
How about if Yahoo do it... I thought this was an interesting find.
<h1><img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ww/beta/y3.gif" border=0 width=232 height=44 alt="Yahoo!" id="ylogo">
<script>
if(typeof(YAHOO)!='undefined') {
document.write('<map name="yodel"><area shape="rect" coords="209,30,216,39" href="http://www.yahoo.com" onclick="callYodel();return false;"><area shape="poly" coords="211,0,222,1,215,26,211,25" href="http://www.yahoo.com" onclick="callYodel();return false;"></map><div id=l_fl style="position:absolute"></div>');
var lr0='http://us.ard.yahoo.com/sessioncode ';
var lcap=0,lncap=0,lnfv=6,ylmap=0;
var ldir="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mntl/ww/06q3/";
var swfl1=ldir+"yodel.swf";
var swflw=1,swflh=1;
}
.
.
.
</script><script language=javascript>
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['hsuGDdibyQo-']='&U=sessioncode ';
</script><noscript><img width=1 height=1 alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=sessioncode"></noscript></h1>
I'm reporting Yahoo to Google.
Several JavaScript lines of code and session ids were removed for visibility reasons
Putting an image in Hx tags has zero conceivable benefit for visitors.
An image with an alt tag in a header tag is very useful for blind web surfers. View your web pages in Links to get a feeling for this.
OK, it's not entirely besides the point that Googlebot is effectively a "blind web surfer"
Hence, don't do it.
Also Quadrille wrote "It's the ALT (and maybe the 'title') that provide the benefit"
In firefox the title tag provides the value, in IE its the alt tag. Alt tags don't have a mouseover effect in firefox.
Back to the topic title
- Images sometimes don't load properly, especially oversees.
- Images can't be seen on all sytems (Lynx..).
- Image values can't be read by all search engines (even today).
Text links are better.
Theres no need to encase image links in an <H*> tag unless you have css coding in place that will do something like put a border around a picture only if the .img H* attribute has a value on your stylesheet. Even then, you don't need the H* to control that value.
Actually there is a need to encase images (and image links) in <hN> tags (sometimes). Header tags provide meaning. So if you mean that the image is part your heading then it is proper, correct and certainly not spam to do so.
However, if you are trying to up your rankings by putting every image link in a header tag regardless of it really being a header than that IS spam (in my opinion anyway).
Just saying...
Unless/until the Alt text is factored into allinanchor calculations I don't think it's on a par with link text.
The H thing is interesting, I remember years ago having doubts on whether using CSS to modify a H1 was quite Kosher :-)
I notice Irish designers (who would generally be clueless about SEO) are increasingly wrapping images in H tags, so were I G I'd give it the benefit of the doubt....
Text link are better.
<h><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Oh foo. Look at all this neat accessibility stuff surrounding me.</a></h><p><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo"></a>Content here, notice it is after the closing </a> in this instance as I surely wouldn't link an entire paragraph. But...</p><p><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Foo</a> - Content here, notice that I have anchor text associated with the image. And, my paragraph content is most likely going to be relevant to that image. Anything wrong with this implementation?</p><ul>
<li><a href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Foo</a> - Oh, shame on me! This has surely got to be search engine spam too, eh?</li>
</ul>The intent was to position an image using valid HTML and follow the guidelines as set forth by the W3. But, because I mentioned something about it having a little SEO benefit, it now becomes spam?
its great!
Not necessarily, but it could be seen as a pointer, have too many pointers and.....
How do you determine "intent" ...
This content is a bit like a title and sets the stage for the content below it.
<h1><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Oh foo. Look at all this neat accessibility stuff surrounding me.</a></h1>
This is the meat of your content and fleshes out the content in the <h1> tag.
<p><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo"></a>Content here, notice it is after the closing </a> in this instance as I surely wouldn't link an entire paragraph. But...</p>
<p><a title="Foo" href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Foo</a> - Content here, notice that I have anchor text associated with the image. And, my paragraph content is most likely going to be relevant to that image. Anything wrong with this implementation?</p>
This is a list, in context might make more sense if it was a <p>
<ul>
<li><a href="foo.asp"><img class="fr" src="foo.gif" alt="Foo">Foo</a> - Oh, shame on me! This has surely got to be search engine spam too, eh?</li>
</ul>
If all you are trying to do is provide hooks for formating then you should use div and span, thats what they are for. On the other hand don't add unnecessary div and span tags. For example many people do this:
<div id='header'><h1>I am the page heading I often include a site logo</h1></div>.
It's not "wrong" to do that, just unnecessary and redundant.
I have no idea if links inside header tags do get a better rank or not, but if they do it would be because you are assigning it a higher relative importance.
And to get back to the original topic. I'd say text links are better because computers aren't yet very good at understanding pictures (alt tag are meant to help solve this, but are prone to keyword spam).
Thats my 2 pennies anyway.
If W3C definition allows it, it can't be considered 'bad coding practice'. The intent might be to magnify "alt text". It is important to determine what W3C meant when they allowed an image element to be embedded in the Heading tags.
Can it be considered SE spam? Let's say it looks more of an experimental strategy that pageoneresults has used in the past.
I think there can be more discussion on pageoneresults's assertion that img encased in H tags do well.
If you are clearly spamming the #*$! out of some images then it's fairly obvious your milage will vary.
Personally I think it's just good SEO, w3 is packed full of good seo and development tips. This one I will be testing (I will report my findings as well).
I've been doing it for years without any negative effect.
I wish I had a penny for every time I've seen a statement like this AFTER someone's website dropped out of sight in Google after an algorithim change.
I wish I had a penny for every time I've seen a statement like this AFTER someone's website dropped out of sight in Google after an algorithim change.
I can't recall ever utilizing anything from the W3 that was subject to the whims of an algo change. Its all the core stuff we're talking about here. This is not stuff that you just apply a blanket algo fix too because there is nothing to fix. ;)
I've been using the <title> Element for years with no negative effects either. :)
I have two takes that I'd like to contribute to this convo.
1. Images surely count as backwards links. I can confirm this as I have my websites banner on a ton of sites and a handful of them show in my backlinks.
2. If/When Goog decides to drop a bomb on all those sites buying links to manipulate their rankings, a banner/image advertisement is going to look a heck of a lot more innocent and less manipulative than a text link using the anchor text you asked the webmaster of the site your on to use.
3. Text links are surely more potent/powerful than banners/images. IMO the risk isn't worth it though.
Goog has created an algorithym based on common sense. It doesnt take a genius to see and figure out that over time they have combatted and taken away, one by one, most of the tools used by webmasters to manipulate their rankings.
You dont think their going to drop a bomb on text link purchasers? The irrelevant ones will get kicked to the curb first. Others may get picked off manually.
The future of seo involves good solid content, a well organized website, daily/weekly updates, incoming links from good sites (I believe trades will still be ok, but they will have to not be link farm/page trades and the links/banners will need to make sense) and OUTGOING links to good sites, with relative content of course.
Theme and semantics (sp?) will be huge too.
If your wanting to rank for Disneyland, you better not be spamming your page with the word disneyland etc. You need to find every relative keyword in question such as mickey mouse, amusement park, rides, snow white, goofy, anaheim california, magic mountain etc. Words in your content relative to what your trying to rank for.
Tomorrows search engine will be able to look at the ingredients of your website, throw them all together and detect what the end result is or should be, which to you and me are the keywords that we want to rank for. I've seen sites that rank for certain FAT keywords that don't even have the keywords on their site! This process I mention has already happened and I'm sure their just going to fine tune it even more as time goes on. Most will never figure it out, especially the corner cutting fast eddie get rich quick type which is who google really wants to put the brakes on.
On an unrelated note, I'm pretty sure that newer sites have to go through oodles of filters before goog lets it hit the main index. If they see a site being made with quality and meeting their parameters, they then let it out into the main index. Call me crazy but there may even be some manual approvals (after being auto filtered a zillion times) in some industries before a site gets to see the light of day in googs main index. It's not really a sandbox with a certain time limit on it though, because you can get out of it early if you have the right level of quality needed to meet their requirements/parameters. On the flip side, if your site is a piece of dung, you will never get out of it. In summary, your going to get out of it what you put into it.
Sorry, I got off on a tangent, I could go on and on all day about SEO. All I meant to say was that banners/images are the safe way to go. Ugly text links at the bottom of peoples pages and spammy menus will be a thing of the past soon. It's ugly and it's just a matter of time before google takes a crap on it. Stick with images, you'll be glad you did. Their more legit.
[edited by: BuzzBomb at 4:08 am (utc) on Aug. 28, 2007]
Not that anyone would particularly want that (except maybe the pr0n industry) but like I said, just curious.
FWIW I don't care who calls it spam, if I need users to visit my site and I can't get them through the normal marketing methods (because I am, admittedly, poor) then I'll do it as long as it's passive and not aggressive (and therefore annoying) concerning the user.
That only applies to personal sites though. I wouldn't dare do it with a client's site if I thought for a moment it would be considered spam. My cauldron bubbles in private, and my staff of light shines in public. But what can you do, we all have reputations to consider ;)
How do you determine "intent" based on the below code examples?
I dont think you can, and that was my point :P
Does the H tag increase the ranking in an image search?
Does an <h> element increase the ranking in any search?
Not that anyone would particularly want that (except maybe the pr0n industry) but like I said, just curious.
Image search is another source of traffic. There are plenty of websites that would benefit from image searches.
I'll do it as long as it's passive and not aggressive (and therefore annoying) concerning the user.
That only applies to personal sites though. I wouldn't dare do it with a client's site if I thought for a moment it would be considered spam.
Arrrggghhh! I believe we have one person in this entire topic that has called this spam and that was Quadrille who started all of this. :)
Nothing has been provided in writing that even comes close at hinting this is spam. Examples have been provided from authorities on the subject along with examples of top web properties who utilize similar methods.
Not one example has been provided in refute. You'll notice that Quadrille is staying away from this one for now because in his book, this is spam because I mentioned SEO value in the beginning. If I didn't mention that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;)
But what can you do, we all have reputations to consider ;)
Read the guidelines for the use of elements and attributes that you have available to you as a Webmaster. You'd be surprised at what is there, much of it buried deep within a page somewhere at the W3. ;)
If/When Goog decides to drop a bomb on all those sites buying links to manipulate their rankings, a banner/image advertisement is going to look a heck of a lot more innocent and less manipulative than a text link using the anchor text you asked the webmaster of the site your on to use.
I don't see how Google's algorithm would catch that, though. And even with a human review by a Google employee, how can you effectively determine the difference between a paid link vs. a free one? I can think of a few blogs which have nonpaid links to other sites, and some of those links happen to have useful keywords as anchor text that coincidentally mirror the linked site's actual name or URL. I don't see how Google can differentiate between a paid link and a free link by virtue of what type of anchor text is used or how many links there are.
As far as the original question goes, I've seen from experience that image links carry some weight if alternate image text is used, but that a text link with good anchor text is ideal.
As a sidenote, this is one of the more interesting threads of this year.
[edited by: DXL at 2:37 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2007]
Ugly text links at the bottom of peoples pages and spammy menus will be a thing of the past soon.
Stick with images, you'll be glad you did. Their more legit.
Your assumption "they're more legit" does not seem correct.
Im specificly referring to short text links that sites put at the bottom of a page OUTSIDE of a content area.
A banner appears to be an ad. A text link appears to be trying to cheat the system.
Im sure it could be argued either way, I see images as less risk though.
Too lazy to check it myself.
Thanks in advance.
Zuko
Image maps OK inside <H2> when they look just like big text with a few smaller text sub-page links under?
[edited by: Marcia at 6:27 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2007]
Users are more likely to click on an attractive looking thumbnail than they are to click on a text link...
So if you have (for example) a thumbnail with appropriate ALT text, AND the same or similar anchor text directly above/below it - does this not cover all the angles?
The alt text does not appear when you mouse-over in Firefox but this does not matter as you can see the anchor text anyway.
The only slight down side is if you use a text reader you get repetition of words..
