Hi,

I just wanted to dispel a few myths going on here...

1. ALT tags are NOT to 'Tell Google' what the image is about, they are there for people who use screen readers to enrich their use of the internet.
2. Screen readers can be set up to read out alt tags, file names or title attributes - depending on the user's preference and presumably on the site they are looking at
3. Google can and does read image file names: http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/32567/A-Marketer-s-Guide-to-Optimizing-Images-for-Google-Search.aspx

If you pick relevant images for your pages then you probably will be able to get keywords into both the alt tag and the file name. I don't think this is spammy! It's accurate.

What would be spammy, and this has already been covered by Issac, is if you repeat the same alt text on the same page - vary it! - 'Blue lego bricks' etc. I personally would avoid saying stuff like 'cheap', 'buy' etc UNLESS the image has that text within it (say a picture of lego with a headline within the image saying 'cheap lego') in which case you are doing exactly what the alt tag is there for - enabling screen reader users to experience as similar experience to us sighted folk as possible.

Sorry for the rant, but it annoys me that something that is meant to help people who are (to my mind) at a disadvantage is abused for SEO purposes!

Best wishes,

Amelia

**EDIT: I am well aware that Google and other search engines use alt tags for rankings. What I wanted the OP to be mindful of is that alt tags were not invented 'to tell google what an image is about'. And to point out their value and use for people using screen readers. Most people do not fully understand how blind users navigate the inter-webs, me included. I just think if I can do something to make it easier for them then I will. If you'd prefer to write alt tags purely for the search engines, that is entirely your prerogative! **

Hi Studio33

We use My Blog Guest (http://myblogguest.com/) for our guest posting activity.

I recently petitioned my boss to be allowed the paid version, and it's well worth it! We have the most basic plan (can't remember what it's called, but it's the cheapest one there) which allows us to post 10 articles in the Articles Gallery. I think there are other plans, but I couldn't say how good they are or not because I haven't used them!

Before using the paid version we'd spend ages on the my blog guest forum trying to get guest posts from relevant sites, but it just wasn't time-effective for us. But, if you're not 100% sure if you want to pay for it or not, then go for the free version to test the waters - especially if your budget is tight (though I do think the price is fair for the service they offer - which is excellent).

I also send out tweets on a fairly irregular basis with the hashtags #guestblog and #guestbloggers if I really need something quick, and that works pretty well (we got a regular guest blogging spot on a very influential and high trafficked blog in our niche from sending out tweets).

Good luck with your guest blogging - it is worthwhile.

Amelia

I've read this as well, but I just don't quite get how or why Google would want to go after all guest blogs! I get that some are rubbish and spammy and I guess those are the ones that cause a problem, but a guest blogging campaign should be as much about gaining traffic from referral sites rather than using if purely for link building.

I think about it like this: if a guest blog brings me traffic by itself then the SEO benefit of the link is the cherry on the cake. Without the SEO benefit, I still get targeted traffic to my site that converts.

I may be being pedantic here but I think the correct status code should be 410 not 404 if the page has gone for good and you don't have a relevant place to redirect traffic to, as per the scenario described.

I believe if Google finds a 410 page, it'll be removed from the index but because 404 is 'file not found' the page may stay in the index, potentially giving bad user experience as outlined by Matt Williamson.

However, I would always redirect if you can - even if you just send traffic to the homepage, it's got to be a better user experience than sending them to a 404 page. I think anyway!

More info here: http://moz.com/learn/seo/http-status-codes

You mention a concern over too many redirects - I think this page may help eliminate your fears: http://www.stateofdigital.com/matt-cutts-there-is-no-limit-to-direct-301-redirects-there-is-on-chains/

Thanks,

Amelia

Hello Lee,

Are you using Google+ Authorship? If you aren't then I think you should be.

Are you sourcing the sites manually, and maintaining a direct relationship with the site owners (as in you don't go via a 3rd party)? Are you adding value to the sites you guest blog on? If you are doing this things then I would have thought you'd be OK.

I think the slippery slope is when the link matters more than the content, the site it's published on, the audience who read it and something Rand didn't mention: if you paid for it or not. So long as your content is good and it is being published on sites that send you relevant (converting) traffic then it ticks more boxes than just being there for the links. I try and think of all links like this: If Google stopped counting this link, would it still provide value? If it's on a high-traffic site and is relevant to that site's audience then it doesn't matter whether Google gives credit for it or not because it still brings in traffic, hopefully my site does it's job properly and turns that traffic into customers. Because it's customers that make a difference to my business NOT rankings!!

I hope this is helpful.

Best wishes,

Amelia

Why not use it to your advantage? E.G make all the products available in the recipes easy to buy from the recipe pages?

'Want to make this dundee cake? Buy all the ingredients here' (or similar).

You may of course already be doing this though.

I wouldn't have thought the presence of useful content to be a detriment to rankings.

Good luck!

Amelia

I think it depends on where the website is - in the UK, it is a requirement to make sure that disabled people have the same or as similar as possible experience online as anyone else. Alt tags make it easier for the blind (amongst other groups of people) to understand the context of a website - a picture tells a thousand words and all that!

I personally think its worth doing (though there are some missing on my site for various reasons) as even if you don't believe any of your visitors are using screen readers I bet some of them actually are.

In the late 90s/early 00s the well known British supermarket, Tesco redeveloped their website to be accessible (not just Alt tags), and saw a staggering increase in sales and conversions as a result. I can't remember the exact figure but it was pretty impressive.

So I guess I'm saying there are other reasons besides SEO and legal to implement accessibility features into your site - fundamental business reasons! Making more money. (though of course the cost must be weighed up against the benefit just like anything else).