Is this spamming ?

For example, I have a software product called "SuperFlash", my
keywords are "Flash Animation Software" and "Flash Website".

In EVERY page TITLE, I added "SuperFlash Flash Animation Software -
Flash Website"
For example:

<title>Home - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software - Flash
Website</title>
<title>Product Tour - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software - Flash
Website</title>
<title>Support - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software - Flash
Website</title>
<title>About Us - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software - Flash
Website</title>

Will this considered as spamming by Google ?

Also, I use some image link. I understand that I have to use ALT tag.
I put "SuperFlash Flash Animation Software" in all ALT tag, like this
:

alt="Buy Now - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software"

alt="Support - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software"

alt="Download - SuperFlash Flash Animation Software"

etc.

Will this also considered as spamming by Google ?

Thanks for any advice.

"moorhuhn" <db2trade (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

For example, I have a software product called "SuperFlash", my
keywords are "Flash Animation Software" and "Flash Website".

In EVERY page TITLE, I added "SuperFlash Flash Animation Software -
Flash Website"
For example:

Will this considered as spamming by Google ?

Google defines spamming as: Trying to deceive the web crawler (Googlebot) by
means of hidden text, deceptive cloaking or doorway pages

Augustus <Imperial.Palace (AT) Rome (DOT) com> says...

Google defines spamming as: Trying to deceive the web crawler
(Googlebot) by means of hidden text, deceptive cloaking or doorway pages

See [ http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html ].

Also be aware that Google is using "spamming" to mean "cheating"
and not the way the rest of the world uses "spamming", which is
"generating too many of the same thing." Trying to use the
Google definition in a net-abuse newsgroup or trying to use the
widely-used definition in a serach engine newsgroup causes a lot
of confusion, but it's fairly easy to adapt to dual definitions.





--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

Ugh, this isnt clear for me So now I am confused whether the
technique in my first post is spamming/cheating or not according to
Google ...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote

Augustus <Imperial.Palace (AT) Rome (DOT) com> says...

Google defines spamming as: Trying to deceive the web crawler
(Googlebot) by means of hidden text, deceptive cloaking or doorway pages

See [ http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html ].

Also be aware that Google is using "spamming" to mean "cheating"
and not the way the rest of the world uses "spamming", which is
"generating too many of the same thing." Trying to use the
Google definition in a net-abuse newsgroup or trying to use the
widely-used definition in a serach engine newsgroup causes a lot
of confusion, but it's fairly easy to adapt to dual definitions.

cmoorhuhn <db2trade (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> typed:

Ugh, this isnt clear for me So now I am confused whether the
technique in my first post is spamming/cheating or not according to
Google ...

no, it's not. it's ugly but not spamming. in general, spamming is, according
to google, to trick googlebot into things. if you just build your websites
and your visitors see nothing but three keywords repeated (theoretical, I
know, you don't!) and google saw the same, that wouldn't be spam but just a
very weird website. If you, on the other hand, put a javascript-redirect on
that page, so that google indexes it but regular users won't see it but get
redirected to a more usable page, that would be spam in google's definition.