Image Link Vs. Text Link?, how much better is one than the other? Options

[Shamon]

Hi All,

Exactly how much better is a text link than an image link...or is it not better at all?

I recently bought a banner ad from a good site and noticed that the webmaster didn't use an adserver...thus a link directly to my site.

Obviously there was no anchor text, but the image did have a title, and i'm pushing him to add a alt attribute. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif)

Any help would be most appreciated!

Thanx!

[Jill]

Image Title attributes don't help search engines as they ignore them. But the alt attribute text of clickable images seems to be treated very similarly to anchor text in an all-text link.

[Kaz007]

Image Title attributes don't help search engines as they ignore them. But the alt attribute text of clickable images seems to be treated very similarly to anchor text in an all-text link.

What makes you say that? Is that fact? I once had a site jump 4 pages that I am 99.99999999% sure was down to alt attributes and the SE in question was G.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[Jill]

Yes. I said alt attributes help. Image Title attributes don't.

[Shamon]

What makes you say that? Is that fact? I once had a site jump 4 pages that I am 99.99999999% sure was down to alt attributes and the SE in question was G.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

hmmm...interesting post. Does your post mean to imply that you had a clickable banner ad / image link from some other site with an alt tag or you added alt tags to pics on your site that were not clickable?

[Kaz007]

hmmm...interesting post. Does your post mean to imply that you had a clickable banner ad / image link from some other site with an alt tag or you added alt tags to pics on your site that were not clickable?

Changed alt attributes to non-clickable images...I remember it had a profound effect on the site in question.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[1dmf]

well it is indexable content and if hyperlinked carries KWD relevancy juice , so perhaps it helps with relevancy as normal text on a page does.

But I wouldn't spend my life changing image attributes on a site with 10's of 1,000's of pages.

It does highlight however, that if you'd semantically added the images to your page giving proper 'alternative' descriptions for those who cannot view the image in the first place, it would have seo'd your page without you having to change a thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

[Kaz007]

It does highlight however, that if you'd semantically added the images to your page giving proper 'alternative' descriptions for those who cannot view the image in the first place, it would have seo'd your page without you having to change a thing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink1.gif)

Whoaa!! Hold on 1dmf! I didn't tell you what I changed...!!!! How do you know what my original alt attributes were???

Calling my SEO shoddy!

Your mark-up is shoddy!!! We can all polish turds!! Only in w3c you get away with it!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[Jill]

Changed alt attributes to non-clickable images...I remember it had a profound effect on the site in question.

It's one of those things I've seen both ways in Google where at times they didn't seem to be indexing the information contained in non-clickable image alt attributes, but at other times they did.

I haven't checked lately, so they very well maybe indexing them. But since there have been times they haven't in the past, I wouldn't count on it as an SEO technique, and of course only write descriptions that are exactly what the image is or contains.

I'd be VERY surprised if your results were changed "profoundly" just by adding alt attribute descriptions to non-clickable images though. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it would definitely surprise me if that were the cause.

[qwerty]

There's a 2004 thread at the SEW forum in which I prove that even though a non-linked image's alt attribute shows up in Google's cached text version of a page, a search on its exact text doesn't return the page. I just tested the same page I used as an example there, and got the opposite results. Right now, an image's alt attribute counts as text, even if the image doesn't anchor a link.

[Connie]

Seems to me that the primary consideration should be accessibility. Every image should have a "alt attribute" whether it is click able or not.

For the OP I would push the webmaster to include the "alt attribute" for accessibility reasons.

[Shamon]

Seems to me that the primary consideration should be accessibility. Every image should have a "alt attribute" whether it is click able or not.

For the OP I would push the webmaster to include the "alt attribute" for accessibility reasons.

..okay, this is probably a stupid question, but if one was to ask a webmaster to add an alt attribure for 'accessibility reasons"...what does that mean? Can somebody who has a hearing difficulty can understand the alt attribute of an image? Can G understand the imge alt? I get the impression that alt means far more than anchor text related to an image...but what is the best argument to provide to a webmaster to give a alt attribute over something else?

[qwerty]

The alt attribute really exists for usability reasons. It's the text that shows up as an alternative for users who don't see the image, so its purpose is to stand in the image's place. So I agree with Connie that usability should be the first thing you think about when you decide on an image's alt attribute. But I think that if you're doing things right, your SEO will mesh nicely with your usability. An image of a golden retriever shouldn't have an alt attribute about Shakespeare, but hopefully a page that's optimized for Shakespeare has images that are relevant to that subject.

But there's just no legitimate reason to use the alt attribute to stuff keywords onto the page. Even if they're being indexed, I can't see how that would be helpful in the long run.

[1dmf]

Whoaa!! Hold on 1dmf! I didn't tell you what I changed...!!!! How do you know what my original alt attributes were???

Calling my SEO shoddy!

Your mark-up is shoddy!!! We can all polish turds!! Only in w3c you get away with it!

get out the wrong side of bed, or summing? I didn't mention a thing as to what you changed, didn't change or anything, I merley made a statement.

That there may be some weight carried by alt attributes by the SE's due to the semantic way in which they are meant to be used in the first place. But If you had 1,000's of pages (not you personally , but the proverbial you), then i'm not sure it would be worth the effort changing them. But if you'd (proverbial you AGAIN!!!), used the alt attribute the way it was meant to be used, you shouldn't have to change anything.

It was a perfectly legitimate and non-personal comment, sorry I spoke!

[Kaz007]

( but the proverbial you),(proverbial you AGAIN!!!),

Nah, Nah just "Sir Kaz" will do! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

@qwerty It's not a case of keyword stuffing...I believe in theme centricity across a page or site, therefore any imagery I use is in synchronisation with the rest of the page/site...therefore I can't help but use keywords in my alt attributes.

Is this keyword stuffing? My rule of thumb is to use keywords where it makes sense to do so, in the sense that whoever has landed on the page can understand the text written.

Keyword stuffing..imo...is stuffing the page so it does not make sense.

It brings up the question of keyword density...how much consideration do the SE's give this??? I mean, How long is a piece of string???

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)