SEO Tycoon

**spencermjax** · 03-05-2006, 09:18 PM

I wanted to know if this is considered a NO-NO

I have a page that has some code on it so that when you click a particular link (not actually a link) hidden info(text) will fold out. The text is actually already there it is just hidden until the marked text ("link") is clicked. example HERE. on that page click the Web Site Maintenance Policy link.

The words on that page seem to be counted on the word counters I have used. What I need to know is if any search engines would consider that deseptive. I don't use it in a "cheating" manner but I can see how it could be.

Any thoughts would be great!

in case you want to know about the code this is how it is set up:

body:

Code:

<div style="cursor:default; cursor:pointer" onClick="expandcontent('sc1')">LINK HERE</div>
 
    <div id="sc1" class="switchcontent">
         content goes here
    </div>

Head:

Code:

<script type="text/javascript">

var enablepersist="on" //Enable saving state of content structure using session cookies? (on/off)
var collapseprevious="yes" //Collapse previously open content when opening present? (yes/no)

if (document.getElementById){
document.write('<style type="text/css">')
document.write('.switchcontent{display:none;}')
document.write('</style>')
}

function getElementbyClass(classname){
ccollect=new Array()
var inc=0
var alltags=document.all? document.all : document.getElementsByTagName("*")
for (i=0; i<alltags.length; i++){
if (alltags[i].className==classname)
ccollect[inc++]=alltags[i]
}
}

function contractcontent(omit){
var inc=0
while (ccollect[inc]){
if (ccollect[inc].id!=omit)
ccollect[inc].style.display="none"
inc++
}
}

function expandcontent(cid){
if (typeof ccollect!="undefined"){
if (collapseprevious=="yes")
contractcontent(cid)
document.getElementById(cid).style.display=(document.getElementById(cid).style.display!="block")? "block" : "none"
}
}

function revivecontent(){
contractcontent("omitnothing")
selectedItem=getselectedItem()
selectedComponents=selectedItem.split("|")
for (i=0; i<selectedComponents.length-1; i++)
document.getElementById(selectedComponents[i]).style.display="block"
}

function get_cookie(Name) { 
var search = Name + "="
var returnvalue = "";
if (document.cookie.length > 0) {
offset = document.cookie.indexOf(search)
if (offset != -1) { 
offset += search.length
end = document.cookie.indexOf(";", offset);
if (end == -1) end = document.cookie.length;
returnvalue=unescape(document.cookie.substring(offset, end))
}
}
return returnvalue;
}

function getselectedItem(){
if (get_cookie(window.location.pathname) != ""){
selectedItem=get_cookie(window.location.pathname)
return selectedItem
}
else
return ""
}

function saveswitchstate(){
var inc=0, selectedItem=""
while (ccollect[inc]){
if (ccollect[inc].style.display=="block")
selectedItem+=ccollect[inc].id+"|"
inc++
}

document.cookie=window.location.pathname+"="+selectedItem
}

function do_onload(){
uniqueidn=window.location.pathname+"firsttimeload"
getElementbyClass("switchcontent")
if (enablepersist=="on" && typeof ccollect!="undefined"){
document.cookie=(get_cookie(uniqueidn)=="")? uniqueidn+"=1" : uniqueidn+"=0" 
firsttimeload=(get_cookie(uniqueidn)==1)? 1 : 0 //check if this is 1st page load
if (!firsttimeload)
revivecontent()
}
}


if (window.addEventListener)
window.addEventListener("load", do_onload, false)
else if (window.attachEvent)
window.attachEvent("onload", do_onload)
else if (document.getElementById)
window.onload=do_onload

if (enablepersist=="on" && document.getElementById)
window.onunload=saveswitchstate

</script>

**CAL** · 03-05-2006, 09:58 PM

Hmmm...I dont know.

Search engines normally have problems reading java script, so they may not recognise it at all...

**chrishirst** · 03-06-2006, 04:22 AM

don't worry about it

hidden text is only a problem when done to deceive, CAL is correct about SEs (currently) not reading javascript (actually the Google indexer can read on page script but not execute it).

One important accessibility point for show/hide designs is to make the content visible initially then hide it with script. This ensures that users with visual UAs and javascript off see the content.

**jhantraz** · 03-06-2006, 05:15 PM

if you use external css to create hidden text, i think there's no effect because SEs cannot read css codes.

**vangogh** · 03-06-2006, 11:57 PM

I think search engines can read css. It's just a matter of whether or not they can always determine the intent of what you're doing.

spencermjax I agree that you should be fine in what you're doing with the search engines. There are many legitimate reasons to hide text, a drop down menu for example.

I'm not sure why you'd want to keep it hidden though. Seems like something that would be good to always have on the page. As a visitor if I saw you hiding that info it might make me suspicious of your motives. I think having the info visible at the start is only going to help you sell maintenance.

**ppedersen** · 03-07-2006, 12:26 AM

FYI:
Colgate Palmolive uses hidden text to makeup for the use of Flash:
http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/HomePage.cvsp (Click the link under the four images to see the hidden text.)

In this instance I think it is acceptable because it is [1] compensating for the technical obstacles of Flash AND [2] is not providing different content than is being used in the Flash file. This is my opinion, and not necessarily the search engines.

I am sure, however, that our visually impaired friends appreciate being able to read a page that they otherwise would not be able to.

**ppedersen** · 03-10-2006, 09:09 AM

OK. In reference to my post above ...in my mind this use is justified because of the reasons I listed above. However, after checking with a G! engineer (I was also thinking of using it on one of my clients sites), I wanted to pass on that he would not recommend doing the method I posted above or any show/hide type workarounds (other than navbar type drop down effects).

After the search engine strategies conference last week, I definitely get the impression that the search engines have put it back on Macromedia to solve the searchability issues.

**kline11** · 03-10-2006, 11:09 AM

It's nothing to worry about. SE's will read the content withing the layer and ignore the javascript. It's only hidden to the viewer.

**vangogh** · 03-10-2006, 12:35 PM

That's interesting Paul. I try to stay away from hiddent text other than in menus, but mostly because there generally doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to use it. Most of the time it just seems more like an effect than anything else. I figure if the text is useful it might as well just be visible always.

**ppedersen** · 03-12-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangogh

I figure if the text is useful it might as well just be visible always.

I agree with you 100%, vangogh. I try to stay away from the dark side of SEO and keep it clean. If you want to build a long-term business or retain long-term clients, that’s the only way to do it.

The only area that I find issues is in the Flash department. Many of my clients are extremely Flash heavy. I have one client that recently built a 100% Flash site and then came to me afterwards for SEO. My advice, build a HTML version of the site. However, when the client chunks out 100K to build their flashy site and has no budget for an HTML version, there aren’t many options.

I definitely have sympathy when I see this sort of thing. How are they supposed to know that you need to think about SEO before it is developed ...especially when the “big, respectable” design firm, that is supposed to be an authority and working in their best interest, isn’t going to tell them that?

Flash is definitely a big issue. The search engines aren’t doing anything about it, Macromedia isn’t doing anything about it, developers don’t know how to design a Flash site for accessibility, and the big firms aren’t going to tell the client anything that hasn’t been brought up as an issue.

I don’t blame the search engines, however. If Macromedia won’t build a product that everyone can access (particularly the disabled), I don’t blame them for ignoring it. There really is a lot Macromedia can do to improve this problem. I will probably blog soon on what exactly that is ...if I ever get around to setting up a blog ;-)

With that said, what are we to do in the meantime? In regard to the solution that Colgate is using, I don’t have a big issue with it since it is not being used to show different content than is in the Flash file. To me it seems like an acceptable solution until the big guys get their act together. The downside, however ...you could get caught and penalized. I only hope that they consider context when evaluating this sort of scenario.

**SnapCount80** · 03-14-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppedersen

I agree with you 100%, vangogh. I try to stay away from the dark side of SEO and keep it clean. If you want to build a long-term business or retain long-term clients, that’s the only way to do it.

The only area that I find issues is in the Flash department. Many of my clients are extremely Flash heavy. I have one client that recently built a 100% Flash site and then came to me afterwards for SEO. My advice, build a HTML version of the site. However, when the client chunks out 100K to build their flashy site and has no budget for an HTML version, there aren’t many options.

I definitely have sympathy when I see this sort of thing. How are they supposed to know that you need to think about SEO before it is developed ...especially when the “big, respectable” design firm, that is supposed to be an authority and working in their best interest, isn’t going to tell them that?

Flash is definitely a big issue. The search engines aren’t doing anything about it, Macromedia isn’t doing anything about it, developers don’t know how to design a Flash site for accessibility, and the big firms aren’t going to tell the client anything that hasn’t been brought up as an issue.

I don’t blame the search engines, however. If Macromedia won’t build a product that everyone can access (particularly the disabled), I don’t blame them for ignoring it. There really is a lot Macromedia can do to improve this problem. I will probably blog soon on what exactly that is ...if I ever get around to setting up a blog ;-)

With that said, what are we to do in the meantime? In regard to the solution that Colgate is using, I don’t have a big issue with it since it is not being used to show different content than is in the Flash file. To me it seems like an acceptable solution until the big guys get their act together. The downside, however ...you could get caught and penalized. I only hope that they consider context when evaluating this sort of scenario.

I've run across the same issue. I have a site that was designed entirely in Flash, so I added a layer with basically any text in the actual flash document, and placed it 2000px left of the viewable screen. It isn't considered deceptive if it's the same text that is viewed anyway, is it?

This whole fiasco was a result of thinking about design rather than marketing... which is an issue all in itself.

**vangogh** · 03-15-2006, 01:18 AM

I know search engines in general and Google in particular are looking at hidden text since it's been a form of keyword spam for years. I've even seen it recommeded to only use hidden text or text that is positioned off the page in navigation.

There are legitimate reasons to use hidden text though and I'm not one who thinks search engines are out to get anyone. I hope they're able to determine when hidden text is being used for keyword spam and when it's being used for legitimate purposes.

Still I try to stay away from it whenever I can and only use it if it's absolutely necessary. Most of the time I think if the text is worth showing it's worth showing always. The case of using hidden text in combination with Flash is certainly a time when it makes sense to use the hidden text and is often the recommended response to getting past some of the limitations of Flash when it comes to seo.

**chrishirst** · 03-15-2006, 04:11 AM

but you don't need to use hidden text with Flash. If you put your text inside the <object> tag it will show for non flash UAs.

No risk, No tricks, No problem.

**vangogh** · 03-15-2006, 12:48 PM

One less reason to use hidden text.

**SnapCount80** · 03-15-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

but you don't need to use hidden text with Flash. If you put your text inside the <object> tag it will show for non flash UAs.

No risk, No tricks, No problem.

There's a good idea. I'll look into it. Thank you chris.

**ppedersen** · 03-16-2006, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishirst

but you don't need to use hidden text with Flash. If you put your text inside the <object> tag it will show for non flash UAs.

"Officially", yes

...I, however, have not seen as good of results as you receive when placing the page copy in their natural tags. I have worked with this sort of page a number of times and always receive better results when the copy is moved outside of the <object>/<noembed> tags and the page is formatted the way you would generally format it otherwise. My theory for this is, because there is so much opportunity to be deceptive, copy within the <noembed> tag does not get as much weight in the algorithm as text that is plainly visible. Realistically... with all the <noembed> abuse, would you give content within it as much weight as content that is plainly visible? I know I wouldn't.

There are lots of ways we are supposed to do things, but all I can speak to is what my experience tells me works and does not work.

**sadiq** · 03-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Search Engine Can not read Java Script.

**chrishirst** · 03-21-2006, 01:18 PM

actually many of the SEs indexers can and do read javascript, what they cannot do is trigger javascript events.