Does Alt Tag Matter Any More? Options

[webstream]

Since we all know you can use transparent gif files and insert keywords in the alt tag, do SE ignore your images' alt tags?

Webstream

[Jill]

Google seems to have figured out how to discount and/or penalize invisible links from transparent .gifs, so you are correct that alt attributes on those, probably won't help.

I also have a suspicion that alt attributes on non-clickable images probably don't do much (if anything) to help boost rankings. That's what it feel like to me.

However, alt attributes that describe the page you're clicking to, on a clickable image, does seem to count. It's very similar to having a text link, which is as it should be. Now, I haven't explicitly studied this lately, but this is definitely how it had worked in the past.

Jill

[Think Web]

SEO aside, the ALT tag provides an alternate message to your viewers who can't see your graphics. Without ALT tags, images on a web site are meaningless to these users. If you will be using graphic menu systems for navigation, these alternate messages are especially important aid to users without the ability to see your graphics. Adding an appropriate ALT tag to every image within your web site will make a huge difference to the accessibility of your web site.

The bottom line is that we should be paying attention to this...for our users!

[webstream]

I want to only look at it form the SEO point of view, not from the UI side (although I agree with Craig.)

I sell "Monkey Bars" and I have 10 different graphic images that link to 10 different pages within the web site. If I insert "monkey xxxxxx" in each alt tag for each of the 10 images will this help optimize the site with regards to SEs?

Webstream

[Jill]

I want to only look at it form the SEO point of view, not from the UI side (although I agree with Craig.)

Unfortunately, you can't do that any more.

Everything you do for SEO purposes affects your site and how your users perceive your site.

I sell "Monkey Bars" and I have 10 different graphic images that link to 10 different pages within the web site. If I insert "monkey xxxxxx" in each alt tag for each of the 10 images will this help optimize the site with regards to SEs?

If it did, but pissed off your users at the same time, would it be worthwhile?

If you insert words in your alt tags that have nothing to do with the image, and/or the page the image link is pointing to, you're essentially spamming the search engines. Whether or not they catch it, is another story. It may work now, it may not. Either way, it's dumb, imo. (I know you're not advocating it, just asking. And I'm just answering! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

Jill

[webstream]

Jill, you are right, I am not advocating it, but there is a reason to ask this...

Let's say we sell flooring and on our home page we have graphic buttons which link to other legitimate web pages.

CODE

<a href="vinylfloors.asp"><img scr="xxx.gif" alt="Vinyl Floors"></a><br>
<a href="woodfloors.asp"><img scr="xxx.gif" alt="Wood Floors"></a><br>
<a href="laminatefloors.asp"><img scr="xxx.gif" alt="Laminate Floors"></a><br>
<a href="floorcare.asp"><img scr="xxx.gif" alt="Caring your Floors"></a><br>
<a href="floorguide.asp"><img scr="xxx.gif" alt="Guide To Floors"></a><br>

Now because "floors" is used in all the Alt tags is this considered spamming or good SEO?

Webstream

[bwelford]

With an image, which is also a link, you have a choice of using an ALT or a TITLE or both. Presumably the ALT is for the image and the TITLE is for the link. From what I have seen, if you put both, then it is the TITLE that shows as your mouse goes over the image.

Do others agree this is correct?

If so, does anyone know whether the TITLE here is worth more in SE ranking terms than the ALT?

And if so, how may this differ among the various search engines?

Barry Welford

[webstream]

I believe the TITLE attribute of the IMG tag is only required on pages designed to be HTML 4.0-compliant.

Webstream

[Jill]

Now because "floors" is used in all the Alt tags is this considered spamming or good SEO?

Great SEO, and good usability.

Exactly as you should create the code, imo.

Jill

[Jill]

Barry, from what I understand, you need the Title attribute if you want the words to show up in Netscape. So it's fine to use both. (Learned this one from usability expert, Kim Krause.)

Jill

[WizardofX]

I have had an experiment going for a couple of years. I have a little 10x10 image that I use to separate the phone and fax numbers. I put an exoteric expression in there as an alt tag to see if the search engines would pick it up.

None of the search engines did, and I had it on over 50 of my own web pages for 2 years.

I need to get ambitious and make them all links to see if that improves things.

So my experiment shows that alt titles on images that don't link to another page are not useful in SEO. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/nono.gif)

Best regards
wiz

[Scottie]

Wow! Great info, Wiz!

I suspected that, but was too lazy to test it. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbup1.gif)

[Optum]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I really disagree with WizardofX on the indexing of ALT tag text in the search engines -- at least in Google. Here is my experience. On one Website I manage, I had a logo image at the top of the page with unique text in the ALT-tag. When this page showed up in Google, the description used was actually text found in that ALT-tag; the text was used nowhere else on the page.

Because the search producing this result was for a word used in this ALT-tag, the word in Google's "description" was put in bold-face, which I believe means it was used in their relevance algorithm. At least it was indexed and recognized. When I replaced the ALT-tag text for this image, the new text showed up the following month in the "description" area when I searched for a unique word in the new ALT-text.

This was just two months ago. Since then, I have paid a great deal of attention to writing keyword-rich text for all ALT-tags, and have noticed most of these pages gaining in position. Of course, many factors could contribute to this rise in ranking, as we know, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me not to continue this practice.

[qwerty]

Welcome to the forum, Optum.

Just to clarify, the logo image you wrote about is not the anchor of a link?

[bwelford]

Optum, I almost feel like Sherlock Holmes here. Trying to figure out why the dog didn't bark, etc.

I don't understand how you can have seen ALT text in a SERP from Google. The description of the listing includes only visible text from the web page. It may also include text from the metatag DESCRIPTION but that is being questioned now by some.

I also did a check on the cached copy in a SERP. The highlight key on the Google Toolbar shows instances of the keyword(s) in the visible page. However if you move over images in the cached copy, the ALT text appears but without the key words being highlighted.

So where exactly did you see the ALT text to confirm that it was used?

Barry Welford