Is it bad (black hat) to have an H1 text as a text indent?
-
Is it bad practice to use a text indent through CSS for H1 text on a homepage(basically hiding h1 text)? I'm just trying to compensate for the fact that some text that should really be in the h1 tag is actually an image.
-
Thanks for the advice! That sounds like a good plan B if I can't get the developers to change the image to text. This is definitely one of the most avoidable yet most frustrating on page issues I encounter.
I guess it's time to update my documentation for development.
-
Thanks, I was just thinking that too, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
-
Hi Mike,
I'd personally say that you're fine, depending how you impliment it.
I personally believe that as long as the text that you add reads what the image contains, you're fine.
SEOmoz even use image replacement!
Good luck!
-
Hi Mike, The text-indent property can be applied to block-level elements (P, H1, etc.) to define the amount of indentation that the first line of the element should receive. The value must be a length or a percentage; percentages refer to the parent element's width. A common use of text-indent would be to indent a paragraph:
**`P { text-indent: 5em }`**
The usage of
text-indent:-9999px
to display a site logo or other image while hiding text should be avoided. It’s a technique used by web spammers trying to game search engines like Google, and is considered spammy behavior. Instead, use an tag and put the text inside itsalt
attribute.According to Matt Cuts (and some other comments) the best solution is to use an image with
alt
andtitle
attributes. Thealt
attribute is for SEO and thetitle
attribute is for accessibility. Using an image also makes sense for semantic markup. A company logo is actually an important piece of content.**`# <a< span="">href="http://stackoverflow.com"> <img< span="">src="logo.png" alt="Stack Overflow" title="Click to return to Stack Overflow homepage" /></img<></a<>`**
<code>Well, recently, I'm thinking about SEO effects with using something like h1 {text-indent: -9999px; background: url('xyz') }...
I dont think I trust this anymore to be good for SEO. And I don't mean that it's actually "good" for it, because that would certainly be bad SEO techniques. I'm just thinking that it wouldn't be too far fetched to believe that in the search algorithms that anything that is negative text indent over ABC pixels, is considered spam and either isn't registered, or even worse, effects your site negatively.</code>Hiding the contents of an H1 tag, such that the search engine is presented with textual content which is not visible to a visitor, is SEO Spamming, and can get the site banned if one of your client's competitors catches you doing it and turns you in! It is, in fact, a form of hidden text spamming (itself "Black Hat", and explicitly banned by all of the major search engines). With the offense made all the worse by the fact you are doing it with an H1 tag, rather than non-emphasized text (Due to both the power of an H1, and the real estate it would take-up if rendered on-screen) Google makes it pretty clear that hidden text spamming is prohibited. In fact, they have a web page in their anti-spam guidelines devoted to it! They also have a check-off box (the first one, in fact!) on their spam report page specifically dedicated to reporting this kind of spamming (see 3rd link - requires login). The fact that Google may not explicitly list every means of hiding keywords does not therefore make a particular spamming technique legit. Indeed, as Google states in their Webmaster guidelines (see 1st link) - "It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it." However, in this case, this method of hiding content is specifically prohibited. On their Hidden Text Spamming page (2nd link), Google lists examples of various tricks to hide content, including specifically - "Using CSS to hide text" Which is what you are proposing to do here. While implementing this with external CSS files MAY make this a bit harder for Google to detect via automated means, it is also a VERY easy technique for someone to spot. All it takes is for just ONE of your client's competitors (OR their SEO's) to wonder why the site is coming-up higher in the SERPs than they are, notice what you are doing, and turn you in to Google for spamming! Any short-term gain you may obtain from such a technique is not worth the risk of getting your client's site banned from Google. The original quote from the WebmasterWorld discussion referenced by the Search Engine Roundtable link Shaq Ali provided makes the following excellent point - "For those who may be hiding things through CSS or negatively positioning content off screen to manipulate page content, I surely wouldn't do that with any long term projects. ;) The penalty for getting busted using this technique I would imagine is a PERMANENT BAN.* No if's, and's, or but's, you're history. You'll need a pardon from the Governor to be reconsidered for inclusion. ;)" (* - Bold replaced with caps) #### Links: * [http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769](http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fsupport%2Fwebmasters%2Fbin%2Fanswer%2Epy%3Fhl%3Den%26answer%3D35769&urlhash=woHy "New window will open") * [http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66353](http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fsupport%2Fwebmasters%2Fbin%2Fanswer%2Epy%3Fanswer%3D66353&urlhash=e5Vy "New window will open") * [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport](http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fwebmasters%2Ftools%2Fspamreport&urlhash=UReX "New window will open") I hope that your query had been solved.
-
If he put the image within the h1, and set the alt text to what he wanted the H1 would that help? It wouldn't be ideal but it could be a workaround that would yield some results.
I agree the design should encompass the proper tags, especially the H1 and H2.
-
Hiding text through CSS is against Google's TOS. So basically it can be classified as "black hat".
Your H1 should tell your users what your page is about, if you have to hide it for whatever reason, there may be something wrong with your design.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Hidden text and mobile indexing
Hello, I believe mobile indexing 1 st is in place. Since then, does google give the same value to content that is hidden behind a tab (for example a question where you need to click on the + to see the answer) as content that would be directly visible ? Thank you,
Technical SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Homepage Not Ranking in Google - How long do old (not current) bad SEO practices exert influence?
I'm trying to get to the bottom of a problem I have with the Google ranking for mauiactivities.com - it's far below what I would hope for. My research so far has uncovered the following, and any advice on where to go from here would be appreciated. _Edit:_No problems with Bing or Yahoo - the site is #1 for primary key word 'maui activities' 1. Running a site:http://www.mauiactivities.com search in Google reveals that the homepage doesn't rank. At all. I looked through the 17 pages of results and can't spot it. Edit: I have now, after fresh checks after submitting the homepage through Search Console, found it at #1 - still, the following applies ... 2. I've found that the domain (before it was purchased by my client in 2011) had some bad inbound links, specifically from scubamaui.com (no longer active). The links where white, on a white background. This web archive snapshot will reveal all. 3. Those bad links were 'cleaned up' (i.e. they don't show in the web archive) from 2014, and as mentioned above, the website is now 'down'. 4. Search Console doesn't have a manual penalty. 5. When I search for 'tropical divers maui' in Google I find www.mauiactivities.com is the 4th result. To me, this indicates a current relationship with the dead site (Tropical Divers Maui). No other term comes close to ranking to high for the homepage. So, to summarise - can the old, dead Tropical Divers Maui website still be affecting the Google ranking, and what would you suggest I do next?
Technical SEO | | jsherwin0 -
Spammers created bad links to old hacked domain, now redirected to our new domain. Advice?
My client had an old site hacked (let's call it "myolddomain.com") and the hackers created many links in other hacked sites with links such as http://myolddomain.com/styless.asp?jordan-12-taxi-kids-cheap-T8927.html The old myolddomain.com site was redirected to a different new site since then, but we still see over a thousand spam links showing up in the new site's Search Console 404 crawl errors report. Also, using the links: operator in google search, we see many results of spam links. Should we be worried about these bad links pointing to our old site and redirecting to 404s on the new site? What is the best recommendation to clean them up? Ignore? 410s? Other? I'm seeing conflicting advice out there. The old site is hosted by the client's previous web developer who doesn't want to clean anything up on their end without an ongoing hosting contract. So beyond turning redirects on or off, the client doesn't want to pay for any additional hosting. So we don't have much control over anything related to "myolddomain.com". 😞 Thanks in advance for any assistance!
Technical SEO | | usDragons0 -
Templates for Meta Description, Good or Bad?
Hello, We have a website where users can browse photos of different categories. For each photo we are using a meta description template such as: Are you looking for a nice and cool photo? [Photo name] is the photo which might be of interest to you. And in the keywords tags we are using: [Photo name] photos, [Photo name] free photos, [Photo name] best photos. I'm wondering, is this any safe method? it's very difficult to write a manual description when you have 3,000+ photos in the database. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | TheSEOGuy10 -
I need help compiling solid documentation and data (if possible) that having tons of orphaned pages is bad for SEO - Can you help?
I spent an hour this afternoon trying to convince my CEO that having thousands of orphaned pages is bad for SEO. His argument was "If they aren't indexed, then I don't see how it can be a problem." Despite my best efforts to convince him that thousands of them ARE indexed, he simply said "Unless you can prove it's bad and prove what benefit the site would get out of cleaning them up, I don't see it as a priority." So, I am turning to all you brilliant folks here in Q & A and asking for help...and some words of encouragement would be nice today too 🙂 Dana
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Will bad things happen if I cancel 301 site redirect?
Hi, please someone help! We have two identical websites, say A & B. Because of the not so good SEO establishment, site B was built and site A was 301 redirected to site B weeks ago. For some reasons, we have to reuse site A, which means we have to cancel the 301 redirection. (Sound a little crazy) So the question are: 1. Can we conduct the action? 2. If we cant, what's the reason? 3. If we can, what would be the best practice? Thanks for help in advance! Plus: we also CARE what would happen to site B if the 301 is cancelled? Will it grow healthy like a new site?
Technical SEO | | Squall3150 -
Can Google read text in Javascript?
We have just completed the redesign of our product page, which you can see here: http://www.uksoccershop.com/p-19045/2011-12-Chelsea-Adidas-Away-Football-Shirt.html Because we want the select size / add to basket section to appear prominently, you can see we are showing only a snippet of the product description in this section and then user has to click "more" to see it. My question is, can Google read the product description here since it's in Javascript? The code is as follows: 2011-12 Chelsea Adidas Away Football Shirt £44.99 Item Code:379606 Brand new, official Chelsea away shirt for the 2011/12 Premiership season, available to buy in adult sizes S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL. This football shirt is manufactured by Adidas and is black in colour.[ More...](javascript:void(0);) Brand new, official Chelsea away shirt for the 2011/12 Premiership season, available to buy in adult sizes S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL. This football shirt is manufactured by Adidas and is black in colour. Cheer on the Blues in style in the new adidas Chelsea Away Shirt, featuring a striking blue blocked design on an imposing black background complete with the club crest and adidas logo embroidery across the chest for a great style on or off the pitch. The new Chelsea Away Shirt is designed with adidas' ClimaCool technology to bring moisture away from your skin, keeping you cool, comfortable and performing at your best as you emulate the skills of Frank Lampard, Fernando Torres and John Terry on the pitch. Customise your shirt with Premiership shirt printing for your favourite Chelsea stars or choose your own custom name and number. Adult Football Shirt
Technical SEO | | ukss1984
Short sleeves soccer jersey
Chelsea club crest to left chest
adidas logo and stripes
Print sponsor to centre
ClimaCool technology
Machine washable Product code: 379606 The 2011/12 Chelsea away football kit is released on 7th July 2011. <form name="currenychange" action="http://www.uksoccershop.com/p-19045/2011-12-Chelsea-Adidas-Away-Football-Shirt.html" method="get">
<select class="topselectbox" onchange="this.form.submit();" name="currency" style="float:right;"> <option value="USD">US Dollars</option> <option value="EUR">Euro</option> <option value="GBP" selected="selected">UK Sterling</option> <option value="AUD">Australian Dollars</option> </select>
</form> Available Now [Be the first to ask a question](javascript:void(0); "Ask a Question")
[Be the first to review this product](javascript://) Rating: 5 out of 5 stars <form name="cart_quantity" action="http://www.uksoccershop.com/p-19045/2011-12-Chelsea-Adidas-Away-Football-Shirt.html?number_of_uploads=0&action=add_product" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data"> Which parts of this is Google going to be able to read? Should we make the product title our H1 header for this page and can it currently read that within the code above? </form>0 -
Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture. The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the Home Page - Converse.com http://www.converse.com Marimekko category page (flash version) http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled) http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google. When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page. ----- Marimekko - Converse All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ... www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached So my issues are… Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages? Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages? Any recommendations on to what to do about this? Thanks, SEOsurfer
Technical SEO | | seosurfer-2883190