jagger ibls and obls?

hi there,

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

more to the point should i run through my OBL's and IBL's and delete all
that dont reference my keyword? "jewellery" this would mean getting rid of
"jewelry" and all other link texts ?

mark

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:20:03 -0000, "mark | r"
<trooperbill (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

hi there,

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

Where are you reading it? I settled at the Ihelpyou forums where,
improbably, they seem to agree with me about things.

more to the point should i run through my OBL's and IBL's and delete all
that dont reference my keyword? "jewellery" this would mean getting rid of
"jewelry" and all other link texts ?

mark

I thought you'd come back up in the rankings? Anyway, it's way too
soon to draw definitive conclusions from what little evidence we have.
My site's still going up and down like a yo-yo and there are ongoing
absurdities observable at the top of the serps (like, f'rinstance, me
not there) that I doubt very much will last.
Grab a brush, jump in a cab and help me finish painting the kitchen,
that'd be something useful for you to do.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:20:03 +0100, mark | r <trooperbill (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that
googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

Even if so, they gather css information not through googlebot. I have
just checked 10 months of logs - googlebot have never fetched any css
file from my site.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&...-stoichiometry
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

mark | r wrote:

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

If that were the case, then irontrail.org would be in a mess of trouble
(and any other site that uses a menu system like that)... If any search
engine was actually looking for things in CSS in relation to
display:none or visibility:hidden, then they would most definitely need
to do more parsing than a simple search in the files (IMO)...

--
Justin Koivisto, ZCE - justin (AT) koivi (DOT) com
http://koivi.com

Big Bill wrote:

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:20:03 -0000, "mark | r"
trooperbill (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:


hi there,

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

Where are you reading it? I settled at the Ihelpyou forums where,
improbably, they seem to agree with me about things.

more to the point should i run through my OBL's and IBL's and delete all
that dont reference my keyword? "jewellery" this would mean getting rid of
"jewelry" and all other link texts ?

mark

I thought you'd come back up in the rankings? Anyway, it's way too
soon to draw definitive conclusions from what little evidence we have.
My site's still going up and down like a yo-yo and there are ongoing
absurdities observable at the top of the serps (like, f'rinstance, me
not there) that I doubt very much will last.
Grab a brush, jump in a cab and help me finish painting the kitchen,
that'd be something useful for you to do.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

its depressing, thats all - where you at, im free weekends

mark

__/ [Borek] on Tuesday 29 November 2005 16:50 \__

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:20:03 +0100, mark | r <trooperbill (AT) hotmail (DOT) com
wrote:

still reading jagger news online.. theres some mass speculation that
googles
detecting display nones in CSS files and discounting the text therein..

Even if so, they gather css information not through googlebot. I have
just checked 10 months of logs - googlebot have never fetched any css
file from my site.

I read a few days ago that Google are unlikely to analyse CSS directly
(never assume this won't change in the future), just as they index images
using separate crawler that get employed.

Google will nonetheless be able to 'see' CSS if it is embedded in the HTML
file rather than in auxiliary files. I was also made aware of the fact
that <font color="#eeeeee">, for example, atop white background can be de-
tected and interpereted as hidden text. Whether it's a semi-automatic ap-
proach involving human reviewers, I am not too sure. It seems like they
can afford manual labour these days. They sure can.

Having mentioned colour tricks, I am not sure to what degree this can be
automated. Pruning out the obvious is easy, but your average Webmaster
will adopt some streetsmarts. White background can be injected using a 1X1
plain white image (a white pixel tiled), which is reminiscent of the
transparent pixel used for spying.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows XP: Dude, where's my RAM?
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:20am up 3:47, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.07, 0.09
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms