Is this considered Black Hat?
-
So here is the website I’m looking at, it ranks #1 in keywords like used cars for sale billings mt, etc. I was trying to figure out how, because there is no content on the page! I am working on one of our sites to get it to rank better when I found this in my research.
So I did a “view page source” to see how many times they’re using keywords and what they’re title and description tags are.
WAIT WHAT…. WHERE IS THIS CONTENT?!
Then I found it…
It doesn’t even read like real content. This has to be considered poor form. I'm not sure why it makes me so angry. What do you guys think?
-
The fact they are hiding content IMO this is black hat. But, don't get too caught up in it being black hat. I know your site and in most searches you are ahead of them. They have 4 backlinks all no followed. I think there are things you could do on other pages on your site to push them down and end up with more than one page on the SERP.
Go get em!
-
It definitely seems shady. I wasn't sure if this was considered "hiding" or "cloaking" because you can easily find the text when you view the source (and I assume that looks more like what the search engines are viewing ) but you have to click several times and you have to know where to look to find it.
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66353?hl=en
This is the article I found to correspond with it.
Thanks for your feedback!
-
Generally I wouldn't consider that "black hat", although it is hiding the content on the page--which is against Google's Webmaster Guidelines. They've mentioned before that if you have content that is "hidden" like this to most users, the expanded content should be displayed in the expanded mode, not in the way it's being done here.
This generally doesn't quality as being "black hat", though.
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
-
Is a link inside a video player considered an inbound link from the domain the player is embedded in?
Good afternoon...We just added a link to our homepage inside the menu of our video player. In the link below, if you click on the menu icon in the bottom right corner of the video player, you'll see a "Powered by WellcomeMat" link at the bottom of the menu. http://www.wellcomemat.com/video/kt216e25172416n/-Rancho-Santa-Fe/Ca/92067/16596-Via-Lago-Azul/1234567890/ My question for the community is would that link be considered an inbound link from any site that has the video player embedded? So hypothetically, the video player is embedded into www.abcd.com. If a user would click on that link and go to our homepage, would search engines recognize that as an inbound link from abcd.com, even though it sits within our video player? And most of the time, the player sits within an iframe. So that's why I'm not 100% sure. Thanks for reading and for your help! It's much appreciated!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | brian7201 -
Would this be considered cloaking and would it be a bad move?
I posted this topic last night, http://moz.com/community/q/seo-dealing-with-a-cdn-on-a-site about issues I am having with a client's images falling out of index because they have a CDN now. So I have come up with a work around, but it might be considered cloaking and I am not sure. A month ago we changed over to using a CDN and the images started falling out of the index after that. Currently when you land on a page the images are served from cdn.site.com What I am thinking about doing is detecting Google Bot and when Google Bot crawls the site serve images from site.com. The images will be the exact same images as served from the CDN so it is not a content switcharoo thing. It is just to try to get the images back in the index. So would this be considered cloaking in your opinion?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LesleyPaone0 -
When does it make sense to make a meta description longer than what's considered best practice?
I've seen all the length recommendations and understand the reasoning is that they will be cut off when you search the time but I've also noticed that Google will "move" the meta description if the search term that the user is using is in the cached version of the page. S I have a case where Google is indexing the pages but not caching the content (at least not yet). So we see the meta description just fine on the Google results but we can't see the content cache when checking the Google cached version. **My question is: **In this case, why would it be a bad idea to make a slightly lengthier (but still relevant) meta description with the intent that one of the terms in that description could match the user's search terms and the description would "move" to highlight that term in the results.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | navidash0 -
Would be the network site map page considered link spam
In the course of the last 18 months my sites have lost from 50 to 70 percent of traffic. Never have used any tricks, just simple white-hat SEO. Anyway, I am now trying to fix things that hadn't been a problem before all those Google updates, but apparently now are. Would appreciate any help.. I used to have a network site map page on everyone of my sites (about 30 sites). It basically would be a page called 'our network' and it'll show a list of links to all of my other sites. These pages were indexed, had decent PR and didn't seem to cause any problem. Here's an example of one of them:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | romanbond
http://www.psoriasisguide.ca/psoriasis_scg.html In the light of Panda and Penguin and all these 'bad links' I decided to get rid of most of them. My traffic didn't recover at all, it actually went further down. Not sure if there is any connection to what I'd done. So, the question is: In your opinion/experience, do you think such network sitemap pages could be causing penalties for link spam?0 -
Black Hat :(
Hello folks! Name is Mike, i'd like to ask some of you your opinion on this matter. My company hired an SEO company (reputable company in LA) to get our rankings where we want them to be. They've been somewhat successful, we were actually quite happy with their performance. I do mostly print marketing and graphic design for my company, I do manage our website and online store. As a cost saving measure we've decided to cut their service (expensive) and the SEO is now brought in-house - that means its my responsibility now. By no means am I a complete newbie, I pretty much know what I need to do in order to maintain our rankings and improve as well. And with the knowledgebase here at SEOMOZ i should be fine (i hope). Thing is that I have asked our previous SEO company to supply a list of all inbound links they created. They've been silent, no response. Am I asking for too much?? I ran some of my links through OpenSite Explorer (great tool by the way) and found tons of incoming links using black hat tactics. I don't see how anybody could benefit making these links but the SEO company who we recently got rid of. I am quite certain they are responsible for these links. Black hat tactics such as keyword stuffing and anchor links (with very small font) on the footer of some random website. Kinda upsets me that we paid so much money for this type of crap. They never offered any advise with respect to on-site SEO which I am now finding out I have a lot of on-site optimizing thank to SEOMOZ. I don't know if its such a big deal or if am simply overreacting. I am concerned of my company's site getting penalized by the search engines and making my job as in-house SEO much more dificult. Is this a big deal? Should I ignore it and begin building my own quality links and content? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mike_sif0 -
Copying my Facebook content to website considered duplicate content?
I write career advice on Facebook on a daily basis. On my homepage users can see the most recent 4-5 feeds (using FB social media plugin). I am thinking to create a page on my website where visitors can see all my previous FB feeds. Would this be considered duplicate content if I copy paste the info, but if I use a Facebook social media plugin then it is not considered duplicate content? I am working on increasing content on my website and feel incorporating FB feeds would make sense. thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | knielsen0 -
Trying to determine if either of these are considered cloaking
Option 1) In the browser, we use javascript to determine if you meet the redirect conditions (referrer not mydomain.com and no bypassing query-string). If so, then we direct your browser to the subdomain.mydomain.com URL. Googlebot would presumably get the original page. Option 2) In the browser, we use javascript to determine if you meet the redirect conditions. If so, we trigger different CSS that hides certain components of the page and use javascript to load in extra ads. Googlebt would get the unaltered page. In both scenarios the page content does not change. However, the presentation is different. The idea is that under certain conditions users are redirected to a page with more ads. The ads are not too severe on the redirected page and will not cause an above the fold penalty. That said, will either option be considered cloaking by Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BostonWright0 -
So what exactly does Google consider a "natural" link profile?
As part of my company's ongoing SEO effort we have been analyzing our link profile. A colleague of mine feels that we should be targeting at least 50% branded anchor text. He claims this is what search engines consider "natural" and we should not go past a threshold of 50% optimized anchor text to make sure we avoid any penalties or decrease in rankings. 50% brand term anchor text seems too high to me. I pointed out that most of our competitors who outrank us have a much greater percentage of optimized links. I've also read other industry experts state that somewhere in the range of 30% branded anchor text would be considered natural. What percent of branded vs. optimized anchor text do you feel looks "natural" and what do you base your opinion on?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DeannaTallman0