How'd he do that?

[Sam Chapman]

I saw a new site hit page 1 today for Austin. Looking at the cached text only I am seeing keywords that don't show up on the cached version. They are stuffed between links on the right. Here is what I'm looking at:

cached

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

text only cached

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...&hl=en&strip=1

Any clues?

[ericbramlett]

He's a "climber" like me You might want to ask him - he's on this board periodically http://www.realestatewebmasters.com/member.php?u=10

[kid disco]

Each of those lines between the links is an image. The text you see in the cache is the alt attribute of those images.

[Sam Chapman]

Each of those lines between the links is an image. The text you see in the cache is the alt attribute of those images.

OK, that makes sense. I see the alt= and the words in the source code. So how does one put images on a page that you can't hover over and see the alt text pop up in a box? This seems to be a clever way to get additional keywords in front of a bot.

[Sam Dodd]

Its is and those alt tags count toward your keyword density.

[kid disco]

The alt text does appear when you hover over the image in IE. I don't think FireFox displays the alt text on hover. Plus, the image is 1 pixel high, so it will be difficult to hover directly over the image.

Nonetheless, I doubt that alt text implemented that way carries much weight. Especially since the image isn't hyperlinked anywhere. If not already, I see a practice like this becoming flagged for over-optimization, much like keyword stuffing and hidden text.

In my opinion, it is not worth your while.

[Micheal Pannell Realtor]

ok so that is Realtorblvd.com do it also. he is a major player here in Dallas.

[VRI]

The alt text does appear when you hover over the image in IE. I don't think FireFox displays the alt text on hover. Plus, the image is 1 pixel high, so it will be difficult to hover directly over the image.

Nonetheless, I doubt that alt text implemented that way carries much weight. Especially since the image isn't hyperlinked anywhere. If not already, I see a practice like this becoming flagged for over-optimization, much like keyword stuffing and hidden text.

In my opinion, it is not worth your while.

Nice post, I agree 100%... at least.

[Sam Dodd]

Sorry but I *THINK* you are wrong. As long as you use accurate discriptions of the pictures, I don't see the SE's penalizing you for using alt tags. You have to remember that those tags are meant for visually impaired people using a text reader.
I think if you over do it or abuse it, you will be penalized but as long as this function is used properly i highly doubt the SE's will penalize you for helping the visually impaired have a better experance on the internet. Not even Google is that heartless!

[kid disco]

Sorry but I *THINK* you are wrong. As long as you use accurate discriptions of the pictures, I don't see the SE's penalizing you for using alt tags. You have to remember that those tags are meant for visually impaired people using a text reader.
I think if you over do it or abuse it, you will be penalized but as long as this function is used properly i highly doubt the SE's will penalize you for helping the visually impaired have a better experance on the internet. Not even Google is that heartless!

My posts in this thread are in the context of this thread. So, I don't think austin mls, listing, houses, texas are accurate descriptions of this image:



Yeah... it's a line.