ALT tags and spam

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags
– if the ALT tags are naturally repeating, meaning that in the process
of describing the images one will repeat the use of a keyword as this
simply makes sense, would this be considered spam?

Thx!

On 16 Jun 2004 11:29:19 -0700, cello <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags

No such thing. alt is an attribute found in the img tag.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:36:06 +0200, "Martin Hagstrøm"
<mha (AT) NOSPAM (DOT) altavista.net> wrote:

"cello" <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3665bf15.0406161029.7f7045fa (AT) posting (DOT) google.com...
Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags
- if the ALT tags are naturally repeating, meaning that in the process
of describing the images one will repeat the use of a keyword as this
simply makes sense, would this be considered spam?

Nobody outside the Googleplex can answer that question for sure. However this is
what the guidelines say, "Make pages for users, not for search engines [...]
Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if
search engines didn't exist?"
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

Apart from build site maps.

BB

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:20:46 -0400, Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 11:29:19 -0700, cello <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags

No such thing. alt is an attribute found in the img tag.

Er, the point of which is to describe the image.
Hence, descriptive.

BB

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:11:02 +0100, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:20:46 -0400, Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 11:29:19 -0700, cello <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags

No such thing. alt is an attribute found in the img tag.

Er, the point of which is to describe the image.
Hence, descriptive.

I'm just being anal. ALT isn't a tag.

Big Bill wrote in
<7hg1d0lc0llcsvhk8rf404ij9so3blltah (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:20:46 -0400, Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 11:29:19 -0700, cello <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT
tags

No such thing. alt is an attribute found in the img tag.

Er, the point of which is to describe the image.
Hence, descriptive.

Sorry to be pedantic, BB, but the function of the alt attribute is not to
describe the image but is to replicate the function performed by the image -
there is often a significant difference between a description of the image
and a description of the image's function.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

cello wrote in
<3665bf15.0406161029.7f7045fa (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT tags
– if the ALT tags are naturally repeating, meaning that in the process
of describing the images one will repeat the use of a keyword as this
simply makes sense, would this be considered spam?

It's worth mentioning that Google doesn't index the contents of the alt
attribute unless the image is used as a link - if you're talking about
images that aren't used as links, you've nothing to worry about.

I'm a little surprised that the alt attribute contains repeated text - since
the function of the alt attribute is to replicate the function of the image,
repetition of the alt attribute implies that there are a number of images
performing the same function.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

PeterMcC wrote:

Sorry to be pedantic, BB, but the function of the alt attribute is
not to describe the image but is to replicate the function performed
by the image - there is often a significant difference between a
description of the image and a description of the image's function.

It should also not be a *description* of the image's function, but if
possible (as you correctly state in your first part of the sentence) a
*replacement* of its function.
Also sorry to be pedantic

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

Philipp Lenssen wrote in
<2jdmvlF10kl3qU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de>

PeterMcC wrote:


Sorry to be pedantic, BB, but the function of the alt attribute is
not to describe the image but is to replicate the function performed
by the image - there is often a significant difference between a
description of the image and a description of the image's function.

It should also not be a *description* of the image's function, but if
possible (as you correctly state in your first part of the sentence) a
*replacement* of its function.
Also sorry to be pedantic

Good point - I got carried away with the symmetry of "description of the
image and a description of the image's function" - still what do you want,
accuracy or eloquence?



--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:05:21 +0100, "PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk>
wrote:

Big Bill wrote in
7hg1d0lc0llcsvhk8rf404ij9so3blltah (AT) 4ax (DOT) com

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:20:46 -0400, Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 11:29:19 -0700, cello <104lombard (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

Google guidelines indicate that a site should use descriptive ALT
tags

No such thing. alt is an attribute found in the img tag.

Er, the point of which is to describe the image.
Hence, descriptive.

Sorry to be pedantic, BB, but the function of the alt attribute is not to
describe the image but is to replicate the function performed by the image -
there is often a significant difference between a description of the image
and a description of the image's function.

I stand severally corrected.
i hope everyone's pointing out to Google that their guidelines are
wrong too. Sniff.

BB