|
|
Posted by El Kabong on 04/21/07 20:41
"Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
news:58v9mnF2ibm6tU1@mid.individual.net...
> Sounds like spamming, especially if you're using inappropriate alt text
> for a given image.
>
> BTW, do you know for certain that alt text has any effect on SEO? AIUI,
> most search engines don't index alt text. Some do only if the image is a
> link.
Not "spamming" if the alt text is appropriate to the image. (Guess I'm still
baffled as to why anyone would think it to their gain to have their "used
car" site come up in a search for, oh, say "mini-blinds." )
It would be far from inappropriate for a resort's Web site to have the
keyword "waterskiing" in the meta tags, a picture of someone waterskiing
named "waterskiing.jpg", and the alt text "Enjoy waterskiing during your
stay!" That's not spamming, it's common sense, and if the search engine
doesn't index the site with the word "waterskiing", it has a faulty
algorithm and would eventually be avoided by users after turning up goofy
results during search's... as happened with Google for a time. (I once did a
search for "Wisconsin Motorcycle Events" and an Iron Man competition in
California came up number one. Number two was a fireman's Web site in
Arkansas. Thank goodness they've fixed that.)
Relevance in content is never spamming.
Do the search engines index alt text? Don't know for sure, but it's my
belief they do, if only for the sake of accessability by visually
handicapped, which obviuosly is another consideration.
Regardless, it shouldn't harm your ranking to include *relevant* strings in
the "img" tag.
El
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|