poto

basically a how-to guide for hidden text... just filter out the whitehat bullshit

source

Hidden Text is one of the challenges faced by webmasters and search engines. Spammers continue to use hidden text to stuff keywords into their pages for purposes of artificially boosting their rankings. Search engines seek to figure out when spammers are doing this, and then then take appropriate action. For the average every day webmaster, one challenge is that there are many ways to create hidden text unintentionally, and no one wants to be penalized for something they did not intend to do. To start our look at hidden text, let's examine Google's Webmaster Guidelines for hidden text, to see the bottom line:

Obviously, this is a fate we all want to avoid. Note the use of the word "perceived" in the above snippet. Doesn't sound like a simple black and white problem, does it? In fact, it's not, so let's look at some of the forms of hidden text. A Few Ways to Create Hidden Text There are many techniques for creating hidden text. Some of these can be done without the use of CSS, and they are usually fairly easy to detect:

1. Make your text and background colors identical (or virtually identical) - this is the original method used by spammers for creating hidden text. It's easy to detect, and I am not aware of any legitimate use for this technique.

2. Set the font size for text to 0, or to a negative number. This is also easy to detect, and I can't think of any legit use for it either.

3. Use a Noscript tag. Here is some sample code for this: <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write("This text is not hidden") //--> </script> <noscript>This is hidden text</noscript> This is really only "pseudo hidden text". While it's possible to make the text contained within the noscript tags different from what is in the Javascript, about 3% of users will see it, and that's more than enough to generate spam report complaints to the search engines. In other words, stuffing a lot of keywords within noscript tags comes with a fair amount of risk.

4. Text way below the fold. This is also a "psuedo hidden text" technique - that of providing content that is really not there for users. So while it is visible, the text is clearly out of the "action oriented" area of a page, and resides well below the fold, and the user needs to scroll down to see it. The text could well be directly related to the site's basic purpose, and the intent in this case would be that of "keyword stuffing". It's hard to detect algorithmically, but, under human review I would conjecture that it would be seen as a poor quality signal. CSS Based Methods for Hiding Text

CSS techniques for creating hidden text are more interesting because they are much harder for search engine crawlers to detect unless they crawl and interpret the CSS. Most crawlers don't do that currently. Here are a few methods for using CSS to hide text:

1. Specify an attribute of display:none. Here is a sample snippet for that: <div class="hiddentext" style="display: none;">This text is hidden </div> When you use display:none, the specified text does not display on the screen, and it is as if the element is simply not there (it has no effect on the placement of any other items on the page). One example use for this attribute is in dynamically creating printable versions of your articles. You can take the existing HTML version of a page, and create a print page by replicating the page, but applying the display:none attribute to the navigation and advertising elements of the page. It's a great technique that allows you to algorithmically create print pages for your articles quite easily. This technique is also used legitimately for the creation of menus, such as DHTML menus.

2. Specify an attribute of visibility: hidden. Here is a sample snippet for that: <div class="hiddentext" style="visibility:hidden">This text is hidden </div> This technique varies from that of display:none. While it also makes the text invisible, the space that the text would have occupied is still used up in the page layout. The space simply shows up as a blank area.

3. Use the z-index command to place your text on a layer below the currently viewable layer. The z-index command is just like any other property. Here is an example of what this could look like:

.hiddentext
{
position: absolute
top: 120px;
left: 250px;
z-index: 0;
}

.visibletext
{
position: absolute
top: 120px;
left: 250px;
z-index: 1;
}

The "visibletext" div is visible simply because it has a greater z-index than the "hiddentext" div. Of course, it does not take too much of a scan of the CSS to detect this technique.

4. Fehrer Image Replacement. This is usually done using CSS to place the image over HTML text. It works simply because the text does not appear to be invisible when you scan the HTML. However, after the text is drawn, if you place an image over the same spot, the text will be covered up by the image. One potential legitimate use for this is to make the text available in HTML for the visually impaired, and for search engines, while rendering a better looking version of the text in an image. Susan Moskwa at Google commented on a Google Groups thread about this and said "if your intent is purely to improve the visual user experience (e.g. by replacing some text with a fancier image of that same text), you don't need to worry."

5. Use CSS to position the text off the screen. Sample code would look as follows:

.hiddentext
{
position: absolute
top: 0px;
left: -5000px;
}

This is another oldie, but goodie. A revised version of this would be to define a label for a table, so that the table is easier for people using screen readers (with impaired vision) to use:

.hiddentext
{
position:absolute;
left:0px;
top:-500px;
width:1px;
height:1px;
overflow:hidden;
}

This variant can then be used as a class for label tags within a table. The result is therefore accessible to screen readers, but does not clutter up the screen for users who have normal vision. However, while the intent may be pure here, there is a risk of the search engines misinterpreting your intent.

Flash based methods for hiding text

1. Scalable Inman Flash Replacement (sIFR). sIFR is a technique that uses Javascript to read in HTML text and render it in Flash instead. The essential fact to focus on here is that the method guarantees that the HTML content and the Flash content are identical. One great use for this is to render the text in an anti-aliased font. This can provide a great improvement in the presentation of your site. At a recent Search Engine Marketing New England (SEMNE) event, Dan Crow, head of Google's crawl team, said that as long as this technique is used in moderation, that it was OK. However, extensive use of sIFR could be interpreted as a poor site quality signal.

2. SWFObject. Unlike sIFR, this method does not guarantee that the HTML and the content in the Flash are the same. SWFObject does not reference the text in the HTML at all. It simply draws a pre-compiled Flash movie in place of the HTML. At the same SEMNE event referenced in the prior point, Dan Crow indicated that this technique was "dangerous". Even though this technique could be used for entirely legitimate reasons (e.g. the same purpose as outlined for sIFR above), there is no way for Google to detect that. Worse still, since an approved technique exists, it just looks bad when you use an unapproved technique.

Unintentionally Creating Hidden Text

There are a few ways that this happens. One of the most common methods is that your Content Management System (CMS) has some of these techniques built into it. This is actually quite common. In particular, some of the CSS based methods are used by CMS systems. For example, many CMS systems use the display:none technique to to implement drop-down menus, or other widgets that the user clicks on that then "expand" to display more text. Tab folders would be a great example of this. Sometimes the display:none technique is used in user generated content systems where the page normally shows the number of comments on a post, but chooses to suppress the text "0 Comments" in the event that no comments have been made yet.

Another common way that people create hidden text occurs when they start providing enhancements for the visually impaired. As with the example provided above of using hidden lables within a table, it comes about because you are trying to place text in a place that will make it look cluttered to a user with normal vision. The solution people use to serve both audiences is to hide the text from the sighted users.

Detecting Hidden Text

So how does Google do at detecting all of these types of hidden text, and telling whether or not the purpose is a legitimate one v.s. a illegitimate one? A recent post titled Number One on Google Using Hidden Text gives you reason to think that it's not as simple as it sounds. That noted, there are some techniques that Google has clearly labelled as bad, or intuitively just seem bad. These are:

1. White text on a white background

2. Setting the font size to 0, or a negative number

3. SWFObject

4. Specify an attribute of visibility:hidden

5. Using the z-index command - someone tell me if I am giving this technique a bad rap, but it smells like trouble to me

Just stay away from these techniques, because by using them you are simply asking to get slapped. There are some methods that could be abused, but may be OK in some cases:

1. Use CSS to position the text off the screen. This is one of those things that can be abused, or could be used legitimately for improved the experience of users with impaired vision as we discussed above.

2. Use a Noscript tag. There is a real application for this to deal with those users who have Javascript disabled. This is about 3% or so of the web surfing public.

3. Text way below the fold. As note before, it is not really hidden text, but it's intent is not good, and it's likely to be seen as a poor quality signal.

4. Specify an attribute of display:none. This technique certainly can be abused, but it is also commonly used for many types of things as a coding technique with legitimate intent.

5. Fehrer Image Replacement. I have listed this technique here, even though the Google Guidelines identify this as a no-no. However, one cannot overlook the comments by Susan Moskwa above.

6. sIFR. The beauty of this is that it by definition shows the same text as the HTML, but still, use it in moderation.

How you get discovered

1. Putting keywords unrelated to the rest of your content is a sure flag

2. Putting too many keywords in your "legitimately" hidden text. Too much text in there in general could inspire someone to take a closer look

3. Use a legitimate technique, but use it too much, so it raises an "investigate me" flag

4. Use an edgy amount of hidden text in seemingly legitimate ways, but then also participate in several other edgy techniques. This will also raise an "investigate me" flag.

5. Have a competitor report you. It is in your competitor's interest to do so, and it happens all the time. Google guarantees that all authenticated spam reports are reviewed.

6. Have your site reviewed by a human. However, this happens, there is no upside to this, only downside.

Google's Position on Hidden Text

It's always good to start with the Google Guidelines for Hidden Text, but you need to look a bit deeper than that. Note the Berghausen, Dan Crow, and Susan Moskwa comments I have referenced above, as well as these statements by Googlers:

In the following Google Groups thread Googler Susan Moskwa had this to say:

Related to this is a recent posting by Matt Cutts on Threadwatch

And, in my most recent interview with Matt Cutts, we spoke about hidden text.

Summary

All these statements suggest that Google does try to detect intent, and is not going to ban a site solely because of someone using hidden text in a way that appears to be legitimate. This does open the door to those who want to abuse this. If someone stuffs a few words in a bit lf legitimate looking text here or there, it's hard to detect algorithmically. However, this is a trap door and an accident waiting to happen. Many webmasters who choose to walk the line on this technique may well be walking the line on other techniques. Google, and the other search engines, relay on this to out real abusers. Also, competitors are anxious to expose those sites that are over the line.

Witness the commentary in my recent interview with Matt Cutts. We talked about a blog post that a relatively little known blog about a competitor ranking for the term access panel using hidden text. Matt Cutts had picked up on this quite quickly, and Google was prepared to take action on it. However, it turns out that the site that was "outed," responded and removed the hidden text, so as Matt indicated in our interview, he removed the offending text. The point is that your competitor wants to report you for doing bad things. That motivation should be a strong deterrent to abusing these techniques.

Ultimately, intent is one of the most important factors. Don't use these techniques to abuse the system. Too much of a good thing turns into a very bad thing. Also, use them in commonly used ways. This is no time to invent some novel new way to apply hidden text to making your site design snazzy or better. For better or worse, doing something unusual, even if your intent is pure, is just asking for trouble. While the search engines want to treat your site appropriately, you make it harder for them by inventing new and unusual coding techniques. Stick to the methods that are commonly in use by others, and you will be better off. In addition, even if your use is completely legitimate, you still need to use any hidden text techniques in moderation. Extensive use of any technique, even in perfectly legitimate ways exposes you to risk. This may by wrong or unfair in some ways, but it's the world we live in. Being morally right, but banned, does not help anyone at the end of the day.

pussyluver

Here's a perfect CSS example from pussy.org (experts at SEO I'd say) main page. Note the links to the highly trusted .gov & .edu TLDs.

<div class="pussysummary">
Pussy.org is the hottest free pussy site on the Internet.
We have pussy pictures and pussy movies of tight, raw, <a href="http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/%7Ehblack/sexylibrarians.htm">sexy pussies</a>.
Pussy.org is like <a href="http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=404">pussy poetry</a>.
<br/>From porn stars to amateurs, hardcore movies to softcore teens, our galleries deliver <a href="http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=124 9">the best fucking videos</a> in our MGPs: the best Free <a href="http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/dial_a_porn.htm">porn</a>.
<br/>We have hot blowjob pictures, Pornstar galleries and <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/analandrectaldiseases.html">anal action</a> movies in our TGPs and MGPs.
<a href="http://del.icio.us/free.porn">Free porn</a> is <a href="http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/index.html">sex of the very best</a>! Free sex.
<br/>
</div>

Copied from pussy.org main page at or about the time and date of this post.

pussyluver

Also worth note is the link to: http://del.icio.us/free.porn

poto

yep, I'd say the pussy.org peeps got a bit in their bag-o-tricks...

linking to high trust sites probably does help a bit... tho, I would think with all the backlinks they have, they wouldn't need it...

as far as del.icio.us goes... well, I link to them too... plus, they have handy dandy rss feeds, which you can also link to

pussyluver

yea, but do you use a hidden link to del.icio.us

pussy.org is a fucking case study in SEO

maybe I better start using <rant> tags

poto

they probably don't get a penalty because of the massive backlink profile they have...

of course... you could always fill out a spam report
Report a Spam Result

who knows... maybe google will listen and throw em a penalty...

pussyluver

I've held back on doing that. Don't want to get in a pissing contest with Jon (owner or pussy.org). Can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind. Fairly sure otthers have bitched. Has you know it gets to be hardball when fighting for big cash keywords.

Plus Jon is one of the biggest cry babies I've seen. He'd prolly just threaten to sue Google or somethin?

pussyluver

In reality, the blind link is just a small issue.

poto

I hear ya... I've been holding back on reporting somebody myself... I'd hate to narc on somebody else for spamming... but this particular asshat I have a beef with... thinking about just googlebowling the bastard instead...

of course I'm not competing with him on any keywords... if I was I'd probably be a bit more militant... this biz if fuckin cutthroat... I know he wouldn't cut me any slack in the same situation...