SEO Class in Chicago, IL
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Image Link Vs. Text Link?
Posted 23 February 2010 - 07:07 AM
Posted 23 February 2010 - 07:17 AM
Huh?? Er, I was referring to 'frequency' of keywords on the page 1dmf.
Categorized per se "dense fog"=a lot of fog..????
I was not referring to KEI 1dmf.
"kaz" I could be girl or guy...who knows..1 dance music forever???
Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:14 AM
Yes, 1dmf knew what you were talking about.
There is obviously such a thing as keyword density, the ratio of keywords on a page as compared to non-keywords.
But this ratio isn't a factor in SEO is what 1dmf was correctly stating.
Posted 23 February 2010 - 09:49 AM
Ratio's affect EVERY single thing on this planet...our lives are flippin governed by ratio's!
Hold on a minute..let me get this right.
Your saying this is not a factor in SEO??
Just to keep relevant to this thread...
Say I have a page about "golden retrievers" the page is 600 words..on this page I mention "golden retriever" 3 times.
My mate, lets call him Fred, also has a page about "golden Retrievers"..this page is also 600 words in length..to the exception that he mentions "golden retriever" 10 times.
Now tell me...from the point of view of the G ALGORYTHM when it considers the ON-PAGE factors...which page is more relevant? Mine or Freds?
Jill I have gotta say...that is the first time I have heard that one!!! Did cutts himself tell you that??
Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:13 AM
Do you really think Google is that dumb?
You think they would just let people rank higher because they added another instance of a keyword phrase to their page?
Perhaps Bing is that dumb, but Google isn't, nor has it ever been. Partially why it became the best very quickly.
Who cares what MC says? He's not an SEO.
Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:50 AM
And that's leaving out the question of where they appear on the page (or where they appear in the code), what tags they're in...
If we could go back to my statement about keyword stuffing in alt attributes and my example of a picture of Shakespeare on a page about Shakespeare, I think the alt attribute of that picture ought to be "William Shakespeare". Depending on how you've optimized the page, I'd be OK with an alt like "English playwright William Shakespeare," but I'd have a problem with an alt of "Shakespeare - William Shakespeare - Elizabethan Playwright William Shakespeare - English Dramatist".
Posted 23 February 2010 - 10:50 AM
Posted 24 February 2010 - 02:55 PM
So...I'm curious on ideas here:
is there any link juice benefit from an incoming image link that has no alt attribute?
..or is the entire image/link/title invisible to G?
Posted 24 February 2010 - 03:02 PM
If your page is about golden retrievers, then a link that says that your page is about golden retrievers means more than just a link. I can't tell you how much more, but it's more.
Posted 24 February 2010 - 03:44 PM
Right. There's definitely PageRank value to an image link without alt attribute text (real PageRank, not toolbar).
But you'd miss the anchor text benefit.
Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:26 PM
I don't think there is any question that the link will have more value SE wise if the "alt attribute" is included in the link. However I don't think that additional value will be much.
I think the big question for you. Is the add producing returns in traffic that justify the cost of the add? Conversions are your responsibility. Adds don't convert.
Posted 01 March 2010 - 12:23 AM
In the HTML/XHTML code behind your web pages that makes them work, when you add an image, you can add an alt attribute to the image source tag: alt="description of image"
People who are blind or visually impaired, who use special reader software as well as those who are physically disabled, using special software or hardware to give them the ability to surf the net need the alt attribute in images so the software can interpret what the image actually is. It could be an image of something, or it could be a navigation or submit button. Because they can't actually "see" the image, alt attributes give them a way to figure out what the image actually is.
Google understands more about the image with the alt attribute attached, processing it as additional text on the page.
The importance of alt attributes:
(they call them alt tags, but the info is useful even if the terminology is not quite right)
Why do you have to justify this to your webmaster? You want your websites to be accessible to everyone, including the images and you want alt attributes describing the images in your pages.
For things like buttons or arrows in lists, you can add alt="" but for actual images with more meaning in the page, you should not leave this blank...if you are trying to make your website content accessible to everyone that might come across your website.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users