Best practices: keywords in alt attributes

This is certainly a subject that I’ve covered before — in fact, it’s something I would hardly choose to cover yet again if it didn’t continue cropping up as an important issue. The use of text in alt attributes is an extremely sensitive subject.

Today, the good folks at SEOmoz published an extensive article documenting their statistical findings on web site ranking factors, as gathered from the data in their LinkScape analysis tool. It’s a good article, and demonstrates some interesting results they’ve garnered from the data available in the extensive LinkScape database.

One of their major takeaways in the article was a little disturbing to me.

Alt attributes of images are probably pretty important places to use your keywords[.]” Explaining (Some of) Google’s Algorithm with Pretty Charts & Math Stuff, October 22nd, 2009

I’m not in anyway disputing their results; their data indicates that placing keywords in alt attributes is of benefit to search engine rankings. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant to me; I simply want to discuss how this information should be best used.

SEOmoz, of course, is a company dedicated to the study and practice of search engine optimization and marketing. Their goal is to learn what they need to know in order to best put into practice the promotion of web sites. That’s great. My goal, however, is to make sure that users with disabilities are able to use and access web sites successfully without having to jump through unnecessary or unhelpful hoops along their way.

This is a particular case where the SEO method must be used cautiously and selectively if at all. What I want to convey in this article is the fact that while using keywords in alt attributes may help your web site rank, it can also result in a significantly less accessible web site, if applied poorly.

What’s the problem with alt attributes?

While sighted users will never even be aware of an alt attribute value in normal web browsing, screen reader users depend on them. Excess verbiage can render an image-based menu unusable, as I observed in a recent site review at Practical eCommerce. The same unnecessary use of keyword terminology in contextual images can easily confuse or distract a user; and the use of keywords with spacer or ornamental images can cause a web site to be completely unnavigable.

It’s all a question of information overload: practically speaking, if a web site uses images to convey information, a screen reader user can’t disable them without rendering the web site unusable. If the site also fills other images with extra text, the same user may be overwhelmed by an unnecessary volume of keyword phrases.

The SEOmoz report does continue to remark that “Keyword stuffing may be holding you back,” and the overuse of keywords in alt attributes can certainly qualify as keyword stuffing.

You shouldn’t take away from this article that using a keyword in an image alt attribute is totally unacceptable. That’s really not the case: just be selective. I wouldn’t condemn you for using the text “About ProductName” instead of “About” for a navigational image, or using a sensible alt attribute for a contextual image, such as “Woman using our ProductName.” Just remember that keyword stuffing is keyword stuffing, wherever you put the words.

And never place any value in the alt attribute for a purely decorational or spacing image. Please. Just an empty attribute.

Taking a holistic view of SEO in parts.

A couple years ago, I wrote an article addressing the differences between working in a search engine friendly manner and working on search engine optimization. That article talked extensively about what is included in optimization which is not necessarily a part of being search engine friendly.

Shari Thurow, a well-respected researcher in the search engine optimization and usability realm, suggested that separating the two concepts is, in fact, ridiculous.

Well, that may be. However, I think that it’s crucial to break a task into parts if you want to gain a thorough understanding of the whole. Search engine marketing is an excellent example of a whole which is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

As I see it, building a search engine friendly site is one of the first stages of best practice search marketing. The adage “if you build it, they will come” fails to hold, however: a site which is constructed merely to be search engine friendly will gain little to no traffic.

Being part of the process

Being search engine friendly is a part of the process of search engine optimization; which is, itself, a part of the process of search engine marketing. In addition to these two aspects, search engine marketing may also include pay-per-click advertising, print advertising, link building and social media participation. Search engine marketing is a large area, and very, very few people are expert in all aspects. I’m certainly not.

From a marketing standpoint, what parts of this marketing whole are necessary for your business to succeed is going to vary radically depending on your industry and the way your business intersects with the internet. It will also depend on your definition of success. If you’re looking to maximize growth, you’ll probably want to be investing in all aspects of marketing.

So I’m arguing that search marketing, while clearly a practice in which the parts of the whole are highly interwoven and carry clear dependencies on each other, can nonetheless be separated into it’s component parts for a variety of reasons, including for the sake of discussion.

Now let me take this a step further. Not only is it possible to separate search engine marketing into separate aspects for discussion, it’s valuable.

If you want to understand the interactions between the different aspects of a task, it’s important to have some information about all parts. In this context, it’s necessary to treat the whole of search engine marketing in a given discussion. However, when you want to understand the details of a specific task, it’s important to stay focused on your part of that task.

It’s necessary for practitioners in search engine marketing to know, in general, what the impact their work will be on all aspects of the marketing campaign. It is crucial for practitioners in search marketing to know, in detail, exactly how to perform their own tasks in the best possible manner for their clients. It’s important to treat an area of expertise specifically. Talking through the nature of that area; comparing and contrasting it to other related areas; considering the specific nature of tasks within that area of expertise: these are all ways of better defining and refining knowledge on a specific subject.

Why does this matter?

It doesn’t, really. It’s all semantics. Search engine optimization is the commonly known term, and it frequently is understood to encapsulate search engine marketing. Or the other way around. The industries around search engines and marketing (and just about anything internet) are young, and the vocabularies aren’t really all the firmly established. As a result, some people have a very firm opinion of what a given term means which may not always coincide with others definitions.

Well, that’s why we write about it. We’re all hoping that our definitions will ultimately win. ;)

Web Accessibility is not SEO

There are numerous articles pointing out the business advantages of accessibility. Many of these reflect the similarity between accessibility and SEO. However, despite the close technical relationship between the needs of disabled users and the technical requirements of search engine optimization, the fact remains that the two goals are not the same, are not equivalent, and do not reflect the same ultimate goals.

At their hearts, web accessibility and SEO are focused on optimizing different aspects of your web site: accessibility cares almost exclusively about the disabled user and their experience whereas SEO is focused firmly on your bottom line and your experience, as site owner, in the online aspects of running your business.

Read more: Web Accessibility is not SEO

Web site Tune-up: 8 Quick Checkups

Perfecting a web site is a long and involved process. There’s no getting around the fact that if you want every aspect of your site to be right — accessibility, search optimization, and just all-around pizzazz, you’ve probably got some significant work to do. However, that’s not to say that there aren’t things you can check quickly and efficiently to make sure you’re not making some of the more egregious errors!

Here are 8 speedy checkups (in no particular order) which you can easily perform on your site to inspect it for problems. No methods suggested require special knowledge of HTML or web programming. Excluding acquiring and installing software, these tasks shouldn’t take more than a few minutes for most sites.

That doesn’t include fixing any problems found, of course…

Read more: Web site Tune-up: 8 Quick Checkups

Google Site Links for “Joe Dolson”

This is just cool:

Joe Dolson Sitelinks

Sitelinks” are additional links Google generates from the contents of a site in order to help users navigate your site — they provide these links in their search results for selected terms. Most sites don’t have site links, so I’m finding it pretty cool to notice them for myself!

If you can’t see the image, the current Sitelinks for this site are:

On the whole, I’m pretty pleased with the selection chosen here. They’ve pretty well pinned down the key areas of the site: web design, web accessibility, search marketing, and my writing on these topics. Everything is reasonably represented. Perhaps, in my forthcoming site redesign (don’t keep a look out; it’s not going to be that soon,) I’ll make a point to better promote these specific areas of the site.

Buying Links: What is it?

It’s a commonly understood fact that having a prominent web site requires strong links pointing to your site. If you want your site to receive traffic, you have to convince people that your site is worth visiting — and worth pointing a link towards.

So, naturally, a market is born. There’s no questioning the correlation between links as a factor to judge the value of a web site and the existence of a market to sell those links. Obviously, the immediate gut reaction is something along the lines of:

But that’s like…prostituting your site!”

Well, that’s perhaps a bit strong. After all, when it all comes right down to it, it’s just another form of advertising. However, unlike most traditional advertising, it’s a method of advertising which has a direct and measurable impact on the success of your business.

Thus you have a conflict of interest between search engines, who want to judge your web site on the basis of the quality of it’s content while using the interest of the general public as a measuring tool, and business owners who would like inflate the quality measurement by exercising the dimensions of their wallets.

It’s a complicated difference of opinion: advertisers and publishers see no reason they shouldn’t be able to purchase advertisements of whatever form they choose from whatever site is willing to sell them. However, if search engines prefer “pure” results, then they will pursue whatever means they can to negate the value of links they identify as purchased.

But how do I know when I’m purchasing a link?

To a high-level search marketer or professional web developer, what constitutes a link buy may seem obvious. Search engines have clearly targeted the underground market of reciprocal link sharing, link brokering, and text link advertising. They very specifically want to target links or advertisements which are capable of passing ranking value.

The average web user or beginner web publisher, however, may be less certain when that line is being crossed.

Purchased Link Scenarios

Scenario #1

A friend and business owner offers you a free meal at his restaurant if you’ll write up a review on your food blog. Your friend doesn’t specify any requirements for the review: positive, negative, whatever. You write it up, adding a link to the website for the restaurant, and go on with your life. You didn’t mention that the meal was free, because you didn’t want to give your readers the impression that maybe you were biased, even though you wrote a very fair review. You also didn’t mention that the restaurant owner is a friend of yours, for the same reason.

Did your friend buy that link from you?

Google’s official stance on paid links states:

Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:

  • Adding a rel=”nofollow” attribute to the a tag
  • Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file

Why should I report paid links to Google?

You didn’t mark the link as “nofollow,” nor did you redirect the link. After all, you’re just an average blog author — you didn’t even know that Google had guidelines on this. On the other hand, you weren’t exactly paid to provide the review…but seriously, that’s just arguing semantics.

From Google’s perspective, yes, that’s probably a paid link — although it’s entirely likely that none of the parties involved knew it. On the plus side, it’s pretty much impossible for Google to detect any exchange like this. There’s no online trace for a personal interaction like this which would throw up any suspicious signals.

Scenario #2

You’re an independent consultant in the construction industry. You become aware of an organization you are eligible to join which maintains an online list of members and provides links to their web sites. It costs $50/year to join, and you’re really not very interested in the organization overall, but you figure that $50/year for a link to your site is pretty worthwhile — and perhaps the organization will come in handy at some point.

Did you buy that link?

Well, on the one hand, you just joined an organization pretty much specifically to gain a link to your site. Yes, you purchased that link. On the other hand, what are these organizations for? Many organizations exist partly to promote their areas of industry and their members — so you paid a fee to the organization, and they are promoting your interests. That’s a legitimate business relationship. But is promotion of members via a link equivalent to having members purchase a link? Hardly. It seems ludicrous to expect every professional organization to add “nofollow” to their membership listings, after all!

Scenario #3

You’re looking to promote your site, and you get in touch with somebody who tells you that, for $500, they can get you 15 really great links to your website. You don’t ask any questions, pay the money, and later find a handful of new links to your site.

Did you buy those links? Oh, hell yeah. You so bought those links. Are they trackable? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the link broker (since that’s basically who you’ve just gone through.) The big question you should be asking right now is “Why didn’t I ask any questions?”

If you just pay some money and end up with some links, you should assume that you could be crossing the line. Basically, if you don’t know the process which led to your having these new links, you probably shouldn’t have purchased them. You’re simply running risks that you can’t readily quantify.

Scenario #4

You’ve just paid $299 for a review by the Yahoo! directory. The deal is pretty simple: you pay them $299, they’ll review your site within 7 days — and if they like it, they’ll add it to the directory. Oh — only for a year. You’ll have to pay them every year if you want it to stick around.

You’re not actually buying a link, in this case: you’re buying an opportunity. They may or may not include your site, so really you’re taking a risk, gambling that your site is what they want. You’re safe, from a search engine perspective.

But…

You may not be safe if you take this same logic and apply it to just any directory on the web. The Yahoo! directory is big, old, very public, and (of course) run by company that also happens to own a search engine.

Even if a directory actually states that you’re paying for a review and that inclusion is not guaranteed, you should probably take a gander at the actual contents of the directory. If you see a generally low quality directory, filled with sites out of their appropriate categories, with misleading descriptions, or with very poor quality content, it’s entirely possible that what they actually mean is “we’re trying to make sure that people keep submitting to our totally useless directory by claiming that we use some kind of quality control.”

And, finally, if a directory does NOT state that you’re only paying for a review or guarantees inclusion, just run away. You don’t want to be there.

In Summary

Is there really an answer to the question “what is link buying”? It depends on context, intent, and detectability. It depends on who’s looking: a search engine or a human. Link purchases can encompass a broad variety of real and legitimate business arrangements. What should you be particularly nervous about? Any service which:

  1. Doesn’t allow you to control what links you purchase/sell.
  2. Will sell/buy links on a bulk basis (“10,000 links IMMEDIATELY!”)
  3. Requires you to disclose your business relationship with them.1
  4. Asks you not to disclose your business relationship with them.1
  5. Will not disclose any information about their methods.

Differentiating between purchased and legitimate links, in most cases, actually comes down to intent. At some level or another, almost every link to any commercial site on the web is likely to have some kind of business exchange behind it. The question is more on the nature of that exchange. But this is, of course, something which is 100% untraceable by any search engine. They’ll never know why you chose a particularly link.

Unless, that is, you’ve used some kind of system which leaves a trace. This, of course, is a reason to be careful when picking who you’ll work with to help build links to your site: be sure that you trust them not to waste your money or damage your site’s success.

Notes:
1. This is a complicated point: it’s not the disclosure itself which is negative — it’s the fact that it’s required. You need to think that if disclosure is required, there may be something questionable about the activity itself. However, if disclosure is expressly forbidden, then you’re really in trouble! Return to text

Get your subscription to Search Marketing Standard!

Subscribe to Search Marketing StandardThe winter issue of Search Marketing Standard is out today – and along with the latest issue, I’m inviting you to take advantage of a limited-time offer from Search Marketing standard which will allow you to subscribe at 67% off the cover price. Now, Search Marketing Standard is already a pretty reasonably priced publication at $15/year — but this discount will give you a year’s subscription for $4.95. ($6.60 for international subscriptions.)

Now, I don’t normally go out of my way to advertise for companies on this blog. However, there’s an extra little piece of incentive in this case which makes me a bit more inclined to push this. Specifically, for every subscriber using coupon code HOLIDAY67, Search Marketing Standard will be donating $1 to the charity Toys for Tots.

The promotion is good for two weeks – it’ll end on Monday, December 10th. Just enter the coupon code HOLIDAY67 during registration to get your subscription.

And a note to those who keep track of these things: Search Marketing Standard is a good publication. They focus on analytics-based, meaningful issues in Search Marketing. This isn’t a publication where you’re going to see anybody recommending cloaking, keyword-stuffing, or any of those many highly questionable practices in the SEO world. It’s not about accessibility, but this publication discusses methods which somebody with a commitment to standards-based, accessible web development can faithfully use to make serious progress in the search marketing arena — without breaking their other commitments.

Subscribe to Search Marketing Standard

Return to Top