[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CedarCityRealtor

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.