I've recently noticed a hidden text at www.ev1servers.net pages.

If you scroll home page till its end, and click CTRL+A, you'll see it

It says:

edicated server dedicated server host cheap web server cheap dedicated hosting server houston web host window dedicated server hosting affordable web server dedicated server

Shame on them...

I like this company, so I decided to help them sending them an alert and trying to explain their fault.

But here's what I got from them:


I'm sorry, but keywords in small print are hardly an "immoral
marketing strategy". it is simply something for search engines to
pick up on. Additionally, Google's search rank algorithm senses
small text as this and recognizes it as "invisible text", and
rates it as Google feels necessary.

Regards,

EV1Servers.net Technical Support


How comes, that so big and reliable company can't understand a common truth...

Please correct me, if I'm wrong

hmmmm, it seems to be gone now

how interesting

Please correct me, if I'm wrong

I would like you to explain how it is "immoral
marketing strategy". I am also wondering why you even care how they decide to do SEO?

The inclusion of hidden text on a Web page to help boost rankings has long been "frowned upon" by Search Engines and is considered "below the belt" tatics. Some go the point of stating it is with purposes that are not in keeping with up front and proper SEO techniques. Using 'immoral' may be a stronger statement than what the SE's use, but the intent of what is portrayed is correct -- hidden text is a sleazy and dishonest technique, used to beat out people staying with the Search Engine Optimizing Rules and commonly accepted practices.

EV1 statement about, "Additionally, Google's search rank algorithm senses small text as this and recognizes it as "invisible text", and rates it as Google feels necessary. " is their admission that, although EV1 knows what they are doing is considered wrong by most (all?) Search Engines, they don't care.

Ergo, if a site is willing to "win at all costs" in their SE rankings, what else are they willing to do that would be considered; wrong, dishonest, or sleazy, compared to the common rules in use for just about anything? And how would it affect their Clients.

Removing the text either means they do care or, like most people doing bad things and are found out, they are trying to hide / remove any evidence of it so they cannot be blamed. Could also be that upper Management realized they have some real twits working for them and took steps to rectify the situation. Hopefully, it is the latter instead of the former. ;)

If you goto googles cache of EV1Servers, it is still there. It reads:

"dedicated server dedicated server host cheap web server cheap dedicated hosting server houston web host window dedicated server hosting affordable web server dedicated server sql virtual dedicated server dedicated web hosting solution dedicated web hosting server hosting window dedicated server dedicated server web hosting cheap dedicated server dedicated linux server web hosting houston cheap server web hosting reseller cpanel rackspace dedicated server dedicated hosting dedicated server hosting cpanel linux server data center Houston, Texas"

Screenshot, I added the red arrow.

Originally posted by mattwade
I would like you to explain how it is "immoral
marketing strategy". I am also wondering why you even care how they decide to do SEO?

Perhaps 'unethical' is a better word than 'immoral' to describe this. Personally, I care how a company does its SEO as much as I care about how it does its billing - unethical is as unethical does. Interesting to note how fast companies discontinue these practices once they've been brought to light. Unfortunately, some companies don't discontinue unethical tactics, they merely change them. I hope EV1 isn't another Aplus:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=263081

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gbT7kI885JQJ:www.ev1servers.net/+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&strip=1

This just... saddens me. :(


Eugene

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:gbT7kI885JQJ:www.ev1servers.net/+&hl=en&...F-8&strip=1

:mad: Busted!!!

http://www.ev1servers.net/english/index.asp
img src="/images/angle1.gif" alt="Houston, Houston, Houston, Affordable, Houston, Houston, Houston, Houston, dedicated server host, dedicated server host, dedicated server host, dedicated server host, dedicated server host, virtual dedicated server affordable web server houston web host cheap web server dedicated server host dedicated web hosting server hosting dedicated server web hosting dedicated linux server web hosting reseller cpanel"


You know, it really bothers me when I see people using Bastard code like this! :angry:

It's no wonder that people with Images turned off or the Blind people, complain about crappy coding with so many Web sites. Blind people use Readers and these Readers will read out what is said in image "alt" tag -- one of the reasons for having an alt tag, actually. Can you image having to listen to all that crap. Depending upon the Reader used it is possible to turn off reading certain tags, but that makes it difficult for easy Browsing.

Turn off this tag and that tag for this site and that site. Turn on this tag and this tag for this site and that site. Why make people jump through hoops just to view a Web page? And don't say the Blind is not your Audience. Blind people do have Hosting accounts, do create Web pages and most definitely Browse the Web.

EV1, get with the program and fire whomever does such crappy coding. Have some respect for the people who visit your site. The above code was listed in your Home page as of today's date. Will you have the courage to correct the problem? Do you really approve of using Bastard code on your Web pages? Stop giving Web designers a Black Eye by showing how to use piss-poor coding techniques. Not to mention the abuse of Search Engine Optimization techniques.

I see that all your pages have this crappy style of coding. Although EV1 is providing a great example of how not to code Web pages, we really don't need the example.

Hehehe,What does hitting ctrl-A do???

I pressed it,clicked my mouse and my browser froze for about 5 secs...Then everything was highlighted :D

"Ctrl-A" isn't the way... just view the source directly.

Oh all get off your high horses.

The long and the short of it is: EV1 is a business, they want to get as high up in search engine rankings as possible and earn more money. If Google catches them then they face the consequences, if not well done ev1 you're higher up the rankings for very little effort.

Sometimes I think some of you WHT'ers are running charities not businesses. Also "immoral" get real, adding text to get higher search engine rankings != immoral. Conning old ladies out of their life savings = immoral, not small text on a webpage.

We don't have small text on our site, so don't think I'm saying this because we do ;)

Andrew

Why, you can still see the text there, its in the exact same place as the image that was attached earlier in this thread.

Originally posted by NetHosted-Andrew
Oh all get off your high horses.

The long and the short of it is: EV1 is a business, they want to get as high up in search engine rankings as possible and earn more money. If Google catches them then they face the consequences, if not well done ev1 you're higher up the rankings for very little effort.

Sometimes I think some of you WHT'ers are running charities not businesses. Also "immoral" get real, adding text to get higher search engine rankings != immoral. Conning old ladies out of their life savings = immoral, not small text on a webpage.

We don't have small text on our site, so don't think I'm saying this because we do ;)

Andrew

Amen!

OK..let me pose this question. At the bottom of one my sites, I link to a page that is very search engine friendly for all the topics on my forums. I obviously do this ONLY because the search engines will index all those pages when they don't really like all the dynamic links in my actual forums. Is this immoral?

By your definition it would be. I mean I am doing something that is strictly to benefit me in search engine rankings.

On the same line of thought, is it immoral to sell links on your web site to companies that obviously just want them for the search engine benefit? It appears that our original poster has done this. Would that be considered immoral?

Originally posted by NetHosted-Andrew
Oh all get off your high horses.

The long and the short of it is: EV1 is a business, they want to get as high up in search engine rankings as possible and earn more money. If Google catches them then they face the consequences, if not well done ev1 you're higher up the rankings for very little effort.
The practice of hidden text is not only wrong and considered spamming the search engines, it's a tactic used mostly by amateur webmasters and small time wannabes, so that's why people are surprised to see such a large well known company doing it.
Originally posted by NetHosted-Andrew
Sometimes I think some of you WHT'ers are running charities not businesses.
Don't insult our members just because they have a higher standard of ethics than you apparently do (seeing as you don't have a problem with this). Most of our members are good decent people who work very hard, and try to do things the honest way. I have ZERO respect for people who try to cheat the system, or stop at nothing to succeed regardless of whether it's honest or not. I feel the same about those who support them. And another thing; this section of the forum is where designers and developers hang out to discuss such issues, and there is nothing wrong with this topic. In fact it's a bit of shocker to see ev1 doing this.
Originally posted by mattwade
OK..let me pose this question. At the bottom of one my sites, I link to a page that is very search engine friendly for all the topics on my forums. I obviously do this ONLY because the search engines will index all those pages when they don't really like all the dynamic links in my actual forums. Is this immoral?

By your definition it would be. I mean I am doing something that is strictly to benefit me in search engine rankings.

On the same line of thought, is it immoral to sell links on your web site to companies that obviously just want them for the search engine benefit? It appears that our original poster has done this. Would that be considered immoral?
You are comparing apples to oranges. Hidden text is totally different than the examples you gave.
Originally posted by BigBison
Perhaps 'unethical' is a better word than 'immoral' to describe this. Personally, I care how a company does its SEO as much as I care about how it does its billing - unethical is as unethical does.
Agreed. Immoral was the wrong choice of a word. Unethical is more suitable.

"immoral" was a poor choice of words imho but these kinds of behavior are bad for the Web and I think they should not be tolerated by the community.

Of course, if Google's algorithms were perfect then it wouldn't be a problem.

It is not apples to oranges. Both are SEO techniques that are used to increase rankings. You think one is OK and the other is not. Other people would gladly argue that selling links on your web site to people that have the sole purpose of increasing search engine rankings in unethical.

Two kids go in a candy store and steal some candy. One sticks it in his pocket. The other holds it openly in front of him as he walks out. By your reasoning, only the one that stuck it in his pocket is at fault.

My point is, if you are going to condemn SEo techniques, condemn them. It seems to me that some of them happen to benefit you and that makes it OK.

matt, I understand what you are saying but there is still a difference. Also, not all SEO techniques are bad or rely on doing things in an underhanded way. It's a perfectly legitimate field. Who said anything about condemnation?

Besides, we are talking about a specific case here, and like most of the people who have responded, I disagree with it, and don't understand how somebody can not have a problem with this. Webmaster ethics 101.

Originally posted by Gen-T
Webmaster ethics 101.

I absolutely agree, and for a major hosting company, who certainly should know better...
it's really surprising and I would expect to see some kind of explanation and apology from them.

I, myself, am more concerned with the highly unethical and sleazy use of keyword stuffing in the "alt" tags. I guess because it was also mentioned how it makes problems for Blind people using a Reader made it seem like like less to worry about?


mattwade, your examples are no where near what is being discussed.

To use correct examples would be like you saying that Spam is OK. After all, Spam is just an eMail technique that is used to increase Sales -- using the same logic presented in your examples. Is Home Page Hijacking also OK? After all, that is just a technique used to increase Visitors to one's Site.

Coding techniques that are highly sleazy or just a little bit sleazy, is still sleazy coding. It also begs the question, "If sleazy Web coding is accepted and practiced by a company, what else could they be doing that would also be considered sleazy?"

search companies (I almost said 'google') search websites in order to make profit. their bots are not human, they don't ask permission, they are not customers.

Lots of big and trusted companies like to play with the search engines (http://dinix.com/dedicated/) although a little underhand, it happens. If they are a competitor report it to the search engines, If not, i don't see how it affects you and why you should get worked up over it.

i see this actully and i take this as a challenge in buissness to be able and deliver beyond ev1servers ......... almost like wont sell short?

Originally posted by Gen-T
Agreed. Immoral was the wrong choice of a word. Unethical is more suitable. [/B]

Please note, that they said so.

I just noted, that they violate basic principles of SEO.

I didn't express any censure on them, just gave a friendly advice.

Unethical SEO affects everyone. Google (and other SEs) implement new tactics and rules to fight these various unethical SEO tactics, however those often also hurt ethical SEO.

Hidden text and link stuffing is unnatural. It doesn't appeal to the human, the end user of any website. It's not a matter of unethical SEO practices. You can design your site in a way that still appeals to the end user and still ensure your high rankings in search engines. Build your content with useful resources and links to your site. Now that's natural.

it is lame.

I still see the text on the bottom :-D

This is hilarious! I thought google's algorithm knew to look for this kinda thing, it is white text and very small font size.

Seems pretty idiotic to risk this for a company that has soo much press release out there, advertising and the like.

Funny stuff :)

Wow, now that is some interesting news. Never thought an established company especially in this industry would do such a thing.

Hey at least you got a response, when I complained about paying sales tax on domains over the past couple years I got no response. I don't live in Texas, so I felt paying tax wasn't right... now they don't charge tax to Cal. and had they gotten back to me, I might still be using them for domains. The extra tax has been less than 100.00 and I haven't had any problems with osrs, heck I didn't even want a refund... just an answer to an email - what happened to the taxes I paid in the past?

Well it does hide quite well from those stupid spam bots i think (If im thinking right here) :D

Man, Im going to get flamed for this but .........

What is the problem? You guys are acting like they broke some kind of law and shuold be punished for this. They added keywords (btw, those words are already found in their site on various pages) to increase their page rankings thus increase their potential exposure and business.

I just fail to see why you think this is immoral, unethical, and they should be beat with a stick for it.

well thats my thoughts, go ahead, flame me up... :)

I'm more concerned about the accessibility of it rather than the SEO tactics. Search engine algorhythms will pick this sort of behaviour up.

there's alot bigger companies manipulating search engine rankings; http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16033

even the biggest company on earth :)

these companies will get caught out eventually, but google hasn't been doing much of anything lately so i wouldnt hold my breathe of anything happening any-time soon.

if your playing with fire your bound to get burnt.

Although there is not much one can do in these type situations, knowledge is power as they say.

Now knowing that EV1 has no confidence in their abilities, SEO wise anyway, and to not abide by the Rules laid out means there could be other areas where they do a dis-service to people. And even though we've done business with EV1 in the past we will no longer do business with them in the future.

Will not be a big loss to EV1 as we are just one small company. If it happens that others feel the same though, it might reach a point where it will get their attention. To each their own.

Oh no. eV1 is spamming Google and using the absurdly unethical and well known frowned upon tactic to boost their own search engine rankings to the detriment of other honest businesses that spend time and money to do things ethically?

I have read the whole of this thread and I must say that I am absolutely disgusted. If eV1 is trying to cheat the search engines, then how do we know that they wont use the same mentality with it's customers?

Just in this post alone, it seems that eV1 charges tax to non Texas residents, until the customers calls them out on it - AND eV1 is trying to cheat the search engines?

..but what gets me is the response from eV1. eV1 thinks it is ok to spam?

What on earth sort of company is this?

I'm afraid now. They have my credit card number!

MrLeN

What I don't get:

Having read Google's spam-report pages, it seems that what they're saying is that if many people report the same page, they'll modify their algorithm to better detect future occurrences of the same tactic.

:confused: Say whaaat? Stuffing the alt attribute with the same seven or eight keywords a half-dozen times each 'slips by' these days? How can Googlebot not detect the spam on EV1's pages?

Hi guys
I have been notified about the issue and am working on correcting it. Sorry for the mistake.

Originally posted by Jason-Ev1servers
Hi guys
I have been notified about the issue and am working on correcting it. Sorry for the mistake.

Hello Jason,
It seems to me that if you want to 'correct' it, and explanation and a public apology is in order.


Eugene

Ok, should be done, now.

Originally posted by Jason-Ev1servers
Ok, should be done, now.

I'm so happy you listen.

I try    

I wonder what got fixed? I don't see any code corrections.

Gen-T goes to check it out...

I got this message by the email that was sent the the Headsurfer. I didn't really know what she was talking about until I emailed her today. I personally had never seen this. It should all be corrected(including the corner images)now.

Indeed, the hidden text has been removed.

It appears the power of WHT member feedback has made a difference here, and caused a significant player in the industry to change at least one aspect of their SEO, not to mention bringing in an employee from the company to be a member himself.

I realize this may be looked upon as only damage control, and if the issue had not been detected it might have continued, but I still give EV1 and Jason thumbs up for coming forward to address it.

I agree with Gen-T, though there might want to be steps taken to fix some other stuff too (like the reliance on fixed elements...)

Originally posted by MrLeN
Just in this post alone, it seems that eV1 charges tax to non Texas residents...

At the time, the tax situation was really out of our hands. We have since then talked with our lawers, and the state, and made it so that only texas residents are charged tax.

The keyword stuffing in 'alt' tags is still there. For me, that has been the big problem all along. Shows no regard for people that do not use their "eyes" to read a Web page and/or people that Surf with images off. Not to mention the SE abuse as well.

:uzi:
is anyone else deeply offended by ev1's use of a dollar sign with only one vertical bar? :homer: :smash:

:flamethr:

Their descriptions in their alt tags still appears more than 15 times throughout their main page.

Why not EV1 instead of stuffing page with hidden text create slightly different page for search engines only?

That page would be the same as usual page, but without content that you don't want to be indexed. That method works perfectly and it isn't stuffing with hidden text - its removal of useless content that you don't need and as far as I see it its a good solution that noone would mind.

Then search engines would index only pages that you want and importance of those pages would increase because there won't be so many pages. Right now there are 767 pages indexed on google, but you need only 5-10 pages and everything else are extras that aren't really needed.

Originally posted by CyberAlien
Why not EV1 instead of stuffing page with hidden text create slightly different page for search engines only?


Maybe because -- that's even worse.
Sorry, but that is just a horrible idea.


That page would be the same as usual page, but without content that you don't want to be indexed. That method works perfectly and it isn't stuffing with hidden text - its removal of useless content that you don't need and as far as I see it its a good solution that noone would mind.

More than a few of us would mind.

Then search engines would index only pages that you want and importance of those pages would increase because there won't be so many pages. Right now there are 767 pages indexed on google, but you need only 5-10 pages and everything else are extras that aren't really needed.

Only "not needed" if you forgot what the purpose of a search engine is:

**A search engine exists to help people find information on the Web**

When you try to manipulate a search engine as a pure marketing tool, you hijack what the search engine is there for.

The search engines are to serve those who browse the Web, and search engines succeed to the degree that they help the user. They are not just another advertising tool.

This was the single biggest thing Google got right. Google is there to help the user, and to present an accurate representation of the Web. Previous search engines were willing to fool the user to any degree as long as they got paid.

If you want advertising, buy advertising. If you want to be found when people are searching for related topics, the limit of what ethical SEO can do for you is to make sure that you aren't hurting your own results in the search engines. That leaves a huge room for SEO, but it also leaves a lot out.

If EV1 doesn't want certain pages of their site indexed, I'm sure they are aware of the perfectly normal ways to indicate that to passing robots. Doing it by sniffing user agents is absolutely the wrong way.

Originally posted by CD Burnt

is anyone else deeply offended by ev1's use of a dollar sign with only one vertical bar?

That's how it is on our keyboards. Blame Microsoft :D

nice to see it "fixed", although It seems highly unlikely it was an "accident" having popular search engine terms repeated like that.

:)

Originally posted by inimino
Only "not needed" if you forgot what the purpose of a search engine is:

**A search engine exists to help people find information on the Web**

When you try to manipulate a search engine as a pure marketing tool, you hijack what the search engine is there for.


I find a very funny that you make the statements that you do, and then on your web site you have:

this is just here to help search engines...
a real site map is coming soon
link link link link link link link link link link link link

http://www.mjclement.com/sitemap/

Just like it says, it's a temporary, automatically generated page, so some of the older pages can be indexed by search engines until I get the time to actually put up a real site map.

There's some information on some of those old pages that someone may find useful. The fake site map is there to help search engines to help people find something that may help them. BTW, thanks for the link, you're helping me help the search engines. Soon there will even be a real sitemap there.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but there's actually no connection between having some temporary links to pages from an old site layout that aren't integrated into the new design yet, solely so that they don't get dropped from indexes in the meantime, and the techniques used by EV1 that we are talking about on this page.

:roll2:


mattwade, :beer:

Originally posted by inimino
Just like it says, it's a temporary, automatically generated page, so some of the older pages can be indexed by search engines until I get the time to actually put up a real site map.

There's some information on some of those old pages that someone may find useful. The fake site map is there to help search engines to help people find something that may help them. BTW, thanks for the link, you're helping me help the search engines. Soon there will even be a real sitemap there.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but there's actually no connection between having some temporary links to pages from an old site layout that aren't integrated into the new design yet, solely so that they don't get dropped from indexes in the meantime, and the techniques used by EV1 that we are talking about on this page.

inimino...You are preaching to the choir. I am in total agreement with you that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing on your pages. I just found it funny that you would mention thing like "When you try to manipulate a search engine as a pure marketing tool", when you are in fact trying to manipulate a search engine - not that there is anything wrong with that.

I just don't buy into the whole ethical -vs- unethical SEO thing. Personally I believe that if you build nice content rich pages and have information that people value that you will do fine. Sometimes the search engines need a little help to find your content however.

Is what ev1 has done unethical? I don't think so. They are just trying to manipulate the search engines a little more than you or I would do. I think in the end they will be punished for it, but that is not for us to decide, it is the job of the search engines.

I would enjoy it is someone would post a definitive list here of what is considered ethical and unethical. It could prove very interesting.

Originally posted by mattwade
inimino...You are preaching to the choir. I am in total agreement with you that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing on your pages. I just found it funny that you would mention thing like "When you try to manipulate a search engine as a pure marketing tool", when you are in fact trying to manipulate a search engine - not that there is anything wrong with that.

I just don't buy into the whole ethical -vs- unethical SEO thing. Personally I believe that if you build nice content rich pages and have information that people value that you will do fine. Sometimes the search engines need a little help to find your content however.


I agree, almost completely, but I do think there is such a thing as unethical SEO, and I'd say hidden text is an example. Why? Probably because I remember when search engines were stupider than Google is now, and keyword stuffing was the norm. There was a kind of escalating arms race and relevant content was replaced in the top search results by pages full of keywords. There was a time when "nice content" didn't do fine. Today "nice content" means having relevant alt text, or empty when the image has no non-visual significance.

What's my guideline for ethical SEO? To me it's whatever doesn't harm the Web or interfere with the purpose search engines are there for.

Helping the search engines find and index your content is fine, but you cross a line when you compromise the usability or accessibility of your site. Why? Because when a site stuffs it's alt attributes with keywords, if we grant for the sake of argument that that technique works, then that site is directly hurting other sites in the search engines -- sites that may have made an effort to be truly accessible. What if everyone else starts doing this to "keep up" in the search engines? Well then we have an inaccessible Web. Don't you agree that's a bad result? Wouldn't you agree that violating the level playing field on which everyone competes, if it harms the Web as a whole, is unethical?

Of course Google is not as stupid as the old engines, and these techniques usually don't work, but that just shows incompetence, it doesn't make it ethical.

Originally posted by mattwade
Is what ev1 has done unethical? I don't think so. They are just trying to manipulate the search engines a little more than you or I would do. I think in the end they will be punished for it, but that is not for us to decide, it is the job of the search engines.

There are standard practices on the Web, and EV1 went against those. It's the search engines' job to decide how or if to punish deviation from those standards, but it is the Internet community that determines what standards it finds acceptable. That means you, me, and everyone else here.

Originally posted by mattwade
I would enjoy it is someone would post a definitive list here of what is considered ethical and unethical. It could prove very interesting.

I certainly wouldn't want to take on such as a task, but like some Justice famously said, "I know it when I see it."

I think a lot of us here know it when we see it, and that's why why we've seen the strong response here to EV1's blunder. There are accepted standards among the Internet community, and we can and should identify breaches of those standards.

If a place of business has Handicapped parking spaces then only those who identify their vehicle as Handicapped can park there. There are obvious reasons for this. Those who use those Handicapped parking spots and not identifying themselves as Handicapped are ticketed and towed. This is because they are trying to take an unfair advantage.

Back in the days before graphical Browsers were commonplace, the 'alt' tag was designed to provide information to those not being able to "see" graphics or have that option turned off. Later it also provided an alternative to using forms. Specific usage of the 'alt' also became identified to helping people that are Blind and use Readers to "see" Web pages. The Search Engines also decided the 'alt' tag would suit their purposes better than the image itself and incorporated its use into their algorithms.

It is important to understand that the 'alt' tag was not designed for Search Engines. The SEs have taken it upon themselves to use it and in ways they see fit. The purpose of the 'alt' tag is to make visiting a Web site and viewing pages more enjoyable to Humans. Those that use the 'alt' tags to manipulate Search Engines are taking an unfair advantage.



For those not aware of the correct 'alt' tag usage and/or those using sleazy coding, allow me to quote from the W3C.


How to specify alternate text (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.3.1)

While alternate text may be very helpful, it must be handled with care. Authors should observe the following guidelines:

* Do not specify irrelevant alternate text when including images intended to format a page, for instance, alt="red ball" would be inappropriate for an image that adds a red ball for decorating a heading or paragraph. In such cases, the alternate text should be the empty string (""). Authors are in any case advised to avoid using images to format pages; style sheets should be used instead.

* Do not specify meaningless alternate text (e.g., "dummy text"). Not only will this frustrate users, it will slow down user agents that must convert text to speech or braille output.Note: I would like to point out that alt="  " (two blank spaces) is a better use of an emtpy string, as pointed out to me by people using Readers.


The above all goes to explain my position on why anyone using keyword stuffing in 'alt' tags is using sleazy coding. Is it unethical? Based on the Guidelines and Standards put out by the W3C I would say YES. As the W3C is considered the de facto Organization for creation and implementation of coding used in Web pages, it is correct to follow the Guidelines and Standards they propose.

Use of Hidden text is also sleazy coding or the signs that someone doesn't know what they are doing and have no confidence in their work. Although "Hidden Text" and how EV1 is currently using it is the Title of this thread, and another bad example of HTML coding, it is the mis-use of 'alt' tags that really bothers me. Mostly because they know it is an unfair advantage, know what they are doing is considered unethical, and do to it such extremes on their Web pages. In other words, they are not just out to screw with people, they are out to royally screw people; in their Web coding anyway. Anywhere else I leave to others to determine.

I'll re-ask the question I asked the other day:

Does Google ever actually de-list anybody for alt-attribute stuffing? They imply they will. Their failure to do so (how could Googlebot not catch EV1 on this?) penalizes accessible websites.

The fact is, EV1 comes up #5 on a search for "Houston Dedicated Servers" and I'm sure they do well in other queries too. Where would they be if they stopped stuffing the alt attribute? If Google never enforces this, why should EV1 stop?

That ticks me off as a web developer. Apparently, I must choose between pragmatism and ethics. What good is an accessible website if nobody knows it exists? I'm also putting myself back in the position of doing web design for clients, which I don't any longer. How to justify crappy search results to a client, when they're asking, "But our competition ranks higher. Don't you know how to do what they're doing?"

I thought Google wasn't supposed to be evil... but they're complicit with EV1's tactics. I find no evidence of any site being de-listed for alt-attribute stuffing. Perhaps I just don't know where or how to look.

BigBison, your statement/question seems to imply that until caught, one is not doing any wrong.

SEs can do what they want. When someone can see with their own eyes, how another is taking advantage of a situation, then common sense should apply.

It is not ethical, correct, or within the Rules of Fair Play, to condone keyword stuffing. Whether SEs catch it or not, if I do, I will decide whether that company providing such Web pages is a company I want to business with it.

Originally posted by Website Rob
BigBison, your statement/question seems to imply that until caught, one is not doing any wrong.

I read his statement as saying that although EV1 servers is clearly doing something wrong, it's still Google's responsibility to penalize that behavior, since without that motivation, unfortunately, some companies will not do the right thing.

If he is saying what I think he is, then I completely agree with you both.

You got it, inimino. It's up to Google to do the right thing. I had hoped, after coming back to web development after a few years' absense, to find this sort of nothing-to-do-with-content bogusness history. Until Google does its part, alt-attribute stuffing will continue. Not only do they not penalize for it, they don't even directly discourage it. They recommend descriptive alt attributes, is all I could find.

Google does say if enough people report alt-attribute stuffing as spam, they will filter it out. But I'm still finding it hard to imagine alt-attribute stuffing hasn't been reported heavily for years.

I am reviving this thread as it is important to not only start threads about what we see as wrong, but to also update them when the wrongs are corrected.

In viewing the Web code of current pages at EV1, all references to keyword stuffing have now been removed. Only looked at few though, but all "alt" attributes would appear to have now been removed from the "img" tag. It's a shame they did that instead of just using the "alt" attribute correctly, but definitely much better coding techniques than what they were using before.

Hat's off to EV1 for correcting their wrong.


And in case anyone was wondering,

http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html

is the link to use for reporting to Google what you think is wrong with a Web page -- that they as a Search Engine, should know about.