Seo tricks - Page 3

FGTH · Share | #41 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compar

But surely that is an argument against links to allied subjects as opposed to the alt tag or anchor text.

No, it is not an argument against allied subjects, but rather an argument against meaningless application of descriptive attributes that serve no other purpose than SEO, and I emphasize NO OTHER PURPOSE.

For instance, the following hypothetical html page applies all the basics of SEO with good structure and relevancy in mind.

<!doctype html public .... yada yada yada>
<html>
<head>
<title>Information on Gigs</title>
<description>Outline of gigs, more gigs, other gigs, and even more gigs</description>
<meta name="keywords" content="gigs">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<h1>Welcome to the Gig information resource page.</h1>
<img src="transparent-gif.gif" width="50" alt="Start Table of Contents"><br>
<h2>Gig Table of Contents</h2>
<a href="#gigs">Gigs</a> <br>
<a href="##more-gigs">More Gigs</a> <br>
<a href="#other-gigs">Other Gigs</a> <br>
<a href="#even-more-gigs">#Even More Gigs</a> <br>
<img src="transparent-gif.gif" width="50" alt="End Table of Contents"><br>
<h2>All you need to know about Gigs</h2>
<a name="gigs"></a>
<h3>Gigs</h3>
<p>This is were relevant information goes for Gigs</p>
<a name="more-gigs"></a>
<h3>More Gigs</h3>
<p>This is were relevant information goes for More Gigs</p>
<a name="other-gigs"></a>
<h3>Other Gigs</h3>
<p>This is were relevant information goes for Other Gigs</p>
<a name="other-gigs"></a>
<h3>Even More Gigs</h3>
<p>This is were relevant information goes for Even More Gigs</p>
</body>
</html>

I bet you that this page would rank well for "gigs" as any other page that uses deceptive SEO tricks like keyword loading alt text. (Not including inbound links criteria)

compar · #42 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 11:47 AM

First of all what is a "deceptive SEO trick"? There is no deception in using an alt tag with an image link in the same manner as anchor text is used with a text link.

Are you against using anchor text with text links? If so you argument is at least consistent. If not then exactly what are you talking about? Because all JS and I are talking about is the fact that Google will use alt attributes with image links in the same way that they will use anchor text with a text link.

Nowhere have we suggested keyword stuffing. In fact we have said that there is no search engine value in using alt tags with non linking images. So these should be used for their original purpose only -- to supply information.

But it isn't our fault that Google decided to read the information provided by the alt attribute on an linking image. All that we are advocating is giving Google the information they are looking for so they can make the best use of it in judging relevancy.

What is relevant information to them should be relevant information to the page reader or viewer. It tells what the image is about and what the viewer is going to find when s/he follows the link.

What in the world can be deceptive about that? I would argue that rather than being deceptive we are doing a public service. We are leaving clues for the search engines in their search for relevancy.

I personally find it insulting that you suggest that JS and I are advocating deceptive practices. SEO is compliance with the search engine algorithms. The search engines set the standards we just give them what they want.

In this case they want to know what a links is about. We supply that information via either anchor text or an alt attribute.

FGTH · #43 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compar

First of all what is a "deceptive SEO trick"? There is no deception in using an alt tag with an image link in the same manner as anchor text is used with a text link.

I will not describe the "SEO tricks" and contribute to further degredation to content quality. I agree that the proper application is as you describe above.

Quote:

Are you against using anchor text with text links? If so you argument is at least consistent. If not then exactly what are you talking about? Because all JS and I are talking about is the fact that Google will use alt attributes with image links in the same way that they will use anchor text with a text link.

No, I am not against proper application of those elements.

Quote:

Nowhere have we suggested keyword stuffing. In fact we have said that there is no search engine value in using alt tags with non linking images. So these should be used for their original purpose only -- to supply information.

Agreed and so I've emphasized that SEO should be done so with accessibility, usability, and relevancy in mind. But I've seen people misuse these elements that DO work on certain SE's.

Quote:

But it isn't our fault that Google decided to read the information provided by the alt attribute on an linking image. All that we are advocating is giving Google the information they are looking for so they can make the best use of it in judging relevancy.

No, it's not your fault and no where has anyone pointed fingers. I suggest you read more carefully before becoming so defensive.

Quote:

What is relevant information to them should be relevant information to the page reader or viewer. It tells what the image is about and what the viewer is going to find when s/he follows the link.

"Them" who?

Quote:

What in the world can be deceptive about that? I would argue that rather than being deceptive we are doing a public service. We are leaving clues for the search engines in their search for relevancy.

The point is moot.

Quote:

I personally find it insulting that you suggest that JS and I are advocating deceptive practices. SEO is compliance with the search engine algorithms. The search engines set the standards we just give them what they want.

Lighten up. Sounds like you have a guilt complex and you're pulling stuff out of your a$$. No one other than the programmers at SE companies know the algorithms and they're bound by law not to reveal them because they're Intellectual Property. Plus, I don't know you personally so don't take it personally.

Quote:

In this case they want to know what a links is about. We supply that information via either anchor text or an alt attribute.

That's right... and that's the way it should be.

compar · #44 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 05:40 PM

Them???

The search engines. That is the only other party interested in the Alt tag.

compar · #45 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

That's right... and that's the way it should be.

Well if that is the case what the f**k was all the bull**** about keyword stuffing????

John Scott · #46 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 05:44 PM

Bob,

Let's remember friendliness.

compar · #47 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Bob,

Let's remember friendliness.

But John friendliness is a two way street. Where was the friendliness in the continued attacks on my advocacy of using alt tag as anchor text for image links.

I get really pissed off at people who put words in my mouth. Let them check their prejudices at the door and read what I said. If I said something inaccurate or wrong them by all means correct me or disagree with me. But don't accuse me of advocating something that I never said.

This is the same bull**** I had to put up with from Jill Whalen. Never ever listened to what I said. Just responded to everything with her own set of built in prejudices.

And John, go back and look at your responses to WilliamC in this same thread. John your repsonses make me look like a Boy Scout.

FGTH · #48 (**permalink**) 03-21-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by compar

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Bob,

Let's remember friendliness.

But John friendliness is a two way street. Where was the friendliness in the continued attacks on my advocacy of using alt tag as anchor text for image links.

I get really pissed off at people who put words in my mouth. Let them check their prejudices at the door and read what I said. If I said something inaccurate or wrong them by all means correct me or disagree with me. But don't accuse me of advocating something that I never said.

This is the same bull**** I had to put up with from Jill Whalen. Never ever listened to what I said. Just responded to everything with her own set of built in prejudices.

And John, go back and look at your responses to WilliamC in this same thread. John your repsonses make me look like a Boy Scout.

Compar, from your statements and vulgar language, you lack professionalism and objectivity. Try reading other people's statements carefully before you go on a mindless tirade and waste everyone's time.

I did not denounce the use of ALT tags, anchors, and other descriptive tags. I'll reiterate... when applying SEO, these descriptive elements should be used with accessibility, relevancy, and usability in mind.

Do you understand? Is that plain enough?

John's just trying to diffuse the situation before you blow a gasket.

Also, your defense of vulgarity is childish... "you did first... blah blah blah"

Lighten up and have a nice day!