Google and external css affecting PageRank

#1

Hi,

(I originally posted this to the google general support forum, but had
no replies, maybe this forum is more appropriate.)

Does the Google PageRank system take information found in an external
css file into consideration when ranking? (for example, a style within
the external css makes text on the page very big and bold, and
therefore google sees it as more important.)

I'm asking because the new css dropdown menu code I'm using "hides" a
dropdown menu from view until the proper rollover action occurs. I
basically simulated the "Son of Suckefish" dropdown menu tutorial I
found.

In this method the dropdown menus are hidden by assigning a value of
-999px when
placing the text on the screen. So in effect it is placed way out of
view on the left side of the screen -- no one sees it.

My question: wouldn't Google consider this spam because it is hiding
text outside the viewable area -- I could see this technique easily
being abused by people wanting to rank well in the search engines and
hiding inappropraite keyword text outside of view which a spider will
pick up but no human can see.

I of course would like to rank well too, but the way I am using it is
not spammy -- but I'm worried that my site may appear spammy if others
abuse this method.

If Google does consider this spam, i need to re-think how I implement
my dropdown menus.

any thoughts appreciated.
-Joe

#2

On 14 Jul 2004 12:02:42 -0700, Joe <josulliv101 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Hi,

(I originally posted this to the google general support forum, but had
no replies, maybe this forum is more appropriate.)

Does the Google PageRank system take information found in an external
css file into consideration when ranking? (for example, a style within
the external css makes text on the page very big and bold, and
therefore google sees it as more important.)

I'm asking because the new css dropdown menu code I'm using "hides" a
dropdown menu from view until the proper rollover action occurs. I
basically simulated the "Son of Suckefish" dropdown menu tutorial I
found.

In this method the dropdown menus are hidden by assigning a value of
-999px when
placing the text on the screen. So in effect it is placed way out of
view on the left side of the screen -- no one sees it.

My question: wouldn't Google consider this spam because it is hiding
text outside the viewable area -- I could see this technique easily
being abused by people wanting to rank well in the search engines and
hiding inappropraite keyword text outside of view which a spider will
pick up but no human can see.

I of course would like to rank well too, but the way I am using it is
not spammy -- but I'm worried that my site may appear spammy if others
abuse this method.

AFAIK Google behaves much like Lynx - no CSS considered. Therefore, CSS
hiding is not going to make a difference.

Quote:

If Google does consider this spam, i need to re-think how I implement
my dropdown menus.

any thoughts appreciated.
-Joe

#3

Neal wrote in
<opsa46wa086v6656 (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>

Quote:

On 14 Jul 2004 12:02:42 -0700, Joe <josulliv101 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi,

(I originally posted this to the google general support forum, but
had no replies, maybe this forum is more appropriate.)

Does the Google PageRank system take information found in an external
css file into consideration when ranking? (for example, a style
within the external css makes text on the page very big and bold, and
therefore google sees it as more important.)
snip

AFAIK Google behaves much like Lynx - no CSS considered. Therefore,
CSS hiding is not going to make a difference.
If Google does consider this spam, i need to re-think how I implement
my dropdown menus.

There has been talk of Google looking at CSS to spot any white-on-white,
tiny fonts and similar tricks but I too have not seen any evidence that this
is happening.

As to the OP, Google sees important text as that which is marked as
strong/emphasised or in <hx> tags, regardless of the type size so that
aspect of it shouldn't worry you.

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

#4

Joe wrote in
<9af06b5.0407141102.6233859a (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>

Quote:

Hi,

(I originally posted this to the google general support forum, but had
no replies, maybe this forum is more appropriate.)

Does the Google PageRank system take information found in an external
css file into consideration when ranking? (for example, a style within
the external css makes text on the page very big and bold, and
therefore google sees it as more important.)

I'm asking because the new css dropdown menu code I'm using "hides" a
dropdown menu from view until the proper rollover action occurs. I
basically simulated the "Son of Suckefish" dropdown menu tutorial I
found.

If it's any help - the S-of-SF demo page has a PR of 5 so Google hasn't
penalised them (yet).
http://www.htmldog.com/articles/suck...le/bones1.html

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

#5

I thought g only liked the bold code as opposed t
 or <emb>

Run some code through a spider viewer it doesn't pic
it up as bold text.
Run and it is recognised as bold text
-----------------------------
Posted via http://www.searchguild.com/

#6

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:23:18 GMT,
jo (AT) moonlightbusinessgifts (DOT)...k.no-spam.invalid (JoJo) wrote:

Quote:

I thought g only liked the bold code as opposed to
strong> or <emb>.

Run some code through a spider viewer it doesn't pick
it up as bold text.
Run and it is recognised as bold text.

No one knows for sure. If it's considered correct markup then Google
should treat it as such. So in theory at least strong and bold should
be equal.

Not come across <emb> before, did you mean ?

BTW spider viewers are a guess at what Google might see, since no one
knows for sure about strong and bold they must of guessed (or forgot
strong :-)).

I tend to use strong over bold.

David
--
http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

#7

Joe <josulliv101 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> says...

Quote:

I'm asking because the new css dropdown menu code I'm using "hides" a
dropdown menu from view until the proper rollover action occurs. I
basically simulated the "Son of Suckefish" dropdown menu tutorial I
found.

In this method the dropdown menus are hidden by assigning a value of
-999px when
placing the text on the screen. So in effect it is placed way out of
view on the left side of the screen -- no one sees it.

My question: wouldn't Google consider this spam because it is hiding
text outside the viewable area -- I could see this technique easily
being abused by people wanting to rank well in the search engines and
hiding inappropraite keyword text outside of view which a spider will
pick up but no human can see.

I of course would like to rank well too, but the way I am using it is
not spammy -- but I'm worried that my site may appear spammy if others
abuse this method.

If Google does consider this spam, i need to re-think how I implement
my dropdown menus.

I am wondering why you are using CSS to make it display off-screen
instead of using CSS to make it not display at all.

#8

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:39:25 -0700, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com>
wrote:

Quote:

I am wondering why you are using CSS to make it display off-screen
instead of using CSS to make it not display at all.

One reason - screenreaders usually follow the screen CSS, and won't see
the hidden links at all if display: none; is set.

#9

SEO Dave wrote in
<kncbf0lm1t5504o2metd0o6134aut84i22 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>

Quote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:23:18 GMT,
jo (AT) moonlightbusinessgifts (DOT)...k.no-spam.invalid (JoJo) wrote:

I thought g only liked the bold code as opposed to
strong> or <emb>.

Run some code through a spider viewer it doesn't pick
it up as bold text.
Run and it is recognised as bold text.

No one knows for sure. If it's considered correct markup then Google
should treat it as such. So in theory at least strong and bold should
be equal.

Not come across <emb> before, did you mean ?

BTW spider viewers are a guess at what Google might see, since no one
knows for sure about strong and bold they must of guessed (or forgot
strong :-)).

I tend to use strong over bold.

I'd agree. Since is semantic whilst <bold> is presentational,
Google should, in theory at least, be taking note of the tag over
that of the <bold>.

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

#10

PeterMcC wrote:

Quote:

SEO Dave wrote

jo (AT) moonlightbusinessgifts (DOT)...k.no-spam.invalid
(JoJo) wrote:

I thought g only liked the bold code as opposed to
strong> or <emb>.

Run some code through a spider viewer it doesn't pick
it up as bold text.
Run and it is recognised as bold text.

No one knows for sure. If it's considered correct markup then
Google should treat it as such. So in theory at least strong and
bold should be equal.

Not come across <emb> before, did you mean ?

BTW spider viewers are a guess at what Google might see,
since no one knows for sure about strong and bold they
must of guessed (or forgot strong :-)).

I tend to use strong over bold.

I'd agree. Since is semantic whilst <bold> is
presentational, Google should, in theory at least,
be taking note of the tag over
that of the <bold>.

I disagree.

The term "bold", like the word "italic" and many other html tags
("font," "face," "headline," "table," "column," "row," "mark-up,"
"head," "body," "style sheet," etc.) can be found in centuries-old
typesetting practice.

The word "strong" is something out of weight-lifting and bears no
relationship to typesetting at all.

I only use the "bold" tag and consider the "strong" tag to be a stupid
intrusion by a non-typesetter into a field where he had no expertise.

If google really ignores "strong" then i suspect that google folks
number a few typesetters among them - 'cause i know that as a typesetter
myself, i despise the redundancy and inappropriateness of the term
"strong" and would not consider it valid mark-up.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to catalogue (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com
and receive a free catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets