Hey,

Where are all our SEOs? I have a question. I noticed the home page of one of my sites was ranking high for a phrase that did not appear in the copy. The keyphrase was in the title. It had been awhile since I launched the site (years!) so I looked at a Google text cache to see if the phrase was anywhere else.

Other than the title, it was in a few ALT tags. That was it. So, I tried a little experiment. I removed that phrase and put in a new keyphrase. I put it in the title and in the ALT tags just as the first one had been.

Within a week I went from nowhere-to-be-found to #17 on Google. I thought ALT tags were all but ignored these days so I had not been making a big deal about writing ALT tags when I wrote copy for my clients. Have they grown in relevance again or do you think this quick increase in rank might be due to the fact that the term I chose is so-so in competitiveness?

I think I'll try one more experiment and switch the term to a more competitive phrase and see what happens.

Any thoughts?

Try putting the phrase in just the alt attributes, and not in the title tag, and see what happens.

I know the title tag is generally considered fairly important. For a low competition phrase, the title tag alone might be enough to get visible rankings.

I believe that Google has gone back to indexing all alt attributes for awhile now, after a period of time during which they apparently only indexed alt attributes related to linked images. What sort of weight they would give these alt attributes, though, I'm not sure.

I suppose it's possible that the combination of title tag and alt attributes would be enough to boost a page for a relatively uncompetitive phrase. Whether the alt attributes alone would be enough would be interesting to test.

--Torka

When you search google for [allintitle:"your term"] how many other sites have the keyword in the title tag?

Well of course one should always use alt attributes if for usability's sake if nothing else. The common rule is to either use alt attribute text that describes the image if it is not linked and if it is linked, describe the page it is linking to. If you desire to use nothing such as with images spacers, use alt="".

Google has always indexed alt attributes whether used in hyperlinked images or not but when I last checked, they gave little to no relevance to alt attributes behind images that were not linked to another page.

What was the case with yours, Karon? Linked or not linked?

Logan - 911 show up when I do an "allintitle" search.

David - One is linked, two are not linked.

Torka - Good idea! I'll try that as part of the test, too.

Other ideas/thoughts? I love doing stuff like this!

OK, I've taken keyword 1 out of the title tag and replaced it with keyword 2. I do not have keyword 2 in any ALT tags or in the copy anywhere. Right now I'm not ranked anywhere in the top 50 for keyword 2.

It will be interesting to see if:

1. Keyword 1 stays at #17, higher or lower since I've removed it from the title tag but left it in the alt tag.

2. If keyword 2 gets decent rankings just from the title tag since it's a little more competitive than keyword 1.

Let the games begin!

This could be a nice experiment. I don't know of any new knowledge about alt tags... been out of the algo chasing loop for a long time. I'm just going to make a guess...

Number one won't happen and number two will.

Reason I say that is you mentioned G and it's been years since you've made changes. My guess is the age of your site and the authority you have with it will make number two do well with just using it in the title tag.

That's my guess and I'm sticking with it. :)

Paul

This thread is especially interesting to me because I just spent a couple hours last night removing a bunch of alt content from my site. Back in my newbie days (not that long ago ... LOL), I was slapping alt text everywhere thinking that was a good thing. Then I realized it was probably making my site look spammy to the SEs so I took most of it out, except where it made sense to leave it in, especially if the image was a link.

Anyway, I'll be watching this thread.

And I'm voting for number 2 as well Karon!

Karri

Yeah, like you, I used to make a big point of writing ALT content for client sites. While I'm not an algo chaser either, I figured every little bit helps. Then I was told (a couple years ago) that every little bit didn't help :) So I stopped writing ALT content.

If sites are getting another little brownie point or two for having good ALT content (not keyword-stuffed garbage, but legitimate tags) then I'll start writing them again.

As David pointed out, there should be some kind of alt attribute on every image tag for accessibility. It's intended to stand in as a text alternative to the image in the event the image isn't available to the visitor. This could be a visually impaired person or someone surfing with images turned off (text-based browser, slow Internet connection, PDA/cellphone, etc.).

Keep in mind that the search engine spiders are also "visually impaired visitors." They can't see any of the pretty pictures, either.

For instance, if the image is a link, I think the alt attribute should describe the destination of the link using words, in the same way that the image itself gives a visual indicator of where the link goes or what it does. The alt attribute takes the place of anchor text that you'd use for a text-based link.

So, just as you would try to have appropriately-keyworded anchor text on internal linking, you could aim for the same thing with the alt attributes of image links. As you say, not repetitious keyword-stuffed crap, but if you can write a relevant and useful alt attribute either using a keyphrase or without, why not write it with the keyphrase?

If the image is simply there as a decorative bit of eye candy, the alt attribute should still be there, but blank (alt=""). This allows speaking browsers to simply skip over the image, which is what you want to have happen for images that don't add to the meaning of the page content. :)

Of course, I realize from a copywriter's standpoint, that's the same thing as not having any alt attributes, because you generally don't really have to spend all that much time writing blanks. :D

--Torka

It would be cool if I got paid to write nothing. :thumbsup2

Alt text should not be put in EVERY image, no need to put it in spacer images and the like. But every image should have an alt attribute, even if it's blank, but only if you care about HTML validation.

There wouldn't happen to be any anchor text links pointing to your site using your alt text keyword would there?

I know that the title tag is very important still. I've had a ranking show up for a keyword phrase that rarely was on the page, disappear and come back again. The unsteady (new not old) ranking and number of pages indexed has been bouncing back and forth recently on a few of my clients sites and has been the talk of Google groups for awhile now.

Karen, if you are doing any testing let it sit for awhile in case Google happens to 'flip the switch' while doing their testing so it doesn't skew your results. If their testing has something to do with alt tags it would be interesting, but I doubt it. More than likely they are doing testing on keyword modifiers and taking the content more importantly.

If that were the case Karen, your services will become even more valuable!:yippee:

Michael Rock

By the way I like your picture and slogen.

There wouldn't happen to be any anchor text links pointing to your site using your alt text keyword would there?

I have no idea. How would I know or find out?

That was quick! OK, page has been indexed and ranked for keyword #2. <Drumroll, please!>

Number 18!

And for keyword #1? It's still ranked, but it lost a spot... down from #17 to #18. I'll leave it like this for a bit and see what comes of it. Fluctuations may still be yet to come.

Pretty cool, huh?

Now, keep in mind that these terms are only getting between 100-200 searches a day. Not the most competitive in the world. And the site I'm testing them on has a good legacy in Google. But still, kind cool to see how the differences affect rankings.

Any thoughts?


Up until Jan of 2003, Google did give weight to ALT text of unlinked images. But then they entirely dropped it. By that I mean, if the keywords were in the Alt text and nowhere else on the page, that page would not show up for a search of the keywords in the Alt text.

This remained true until last year. Sometime in Feb the ALT text was weighted, then dropped. It came back again last winter.

Google seems indecisive where ALT text is concerned. It is often a preferred place to load up on keywords, so I have my money on Google dropping ALT text weighting again in the near future.

Keyword #2 has now moved to #14 on Google and keyword #1 has stayed pretty much the same.

I agree with John about the weight of alt attributes as far as seo is concerned. I can't see them ever having a major effect on ranking in the future given how webmasters like to stuff them full of keywords.

The alt attribute is meant for people who can not see images in their browser whether it's because they've turned images off or because they have a visual disability. The alt attribute is meant to be a way to provide information to those people. Screen readers will read what's in there so before you add anything to the alt attribute think for a minute about how it will sound to someone who can't see.

Most of the time your alt attributes should just be blank. (alt="") If I'm not mistaken leving it blank will allow a screen reader to simply pass over it ultimately making the browsing experience easier.

If the image in question is a link then you should say something about where that link will take your visitors. If the images is just eye candy then describing it further to someone who can't see it doesn't really help them much. To say something like 'image of a red ferrrari' isn't necessarily important to someone who can't see the image.

I've always pointed people to The alt and title attributes (http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/) as a guide for the best way to use both attributes. Whatever their affect on seo alt (and title) atrributes are there to make web pages more accesible and that's really how they should be treated.

There wouldn't happen to be any anchor text links pointing to your site using your alt text keyword would there?

I have no idea. How would I know or find out?

I bought some software to do that.

Here are some resources on the net for you to try:
http://tools.seobook.com/backlink-analyzer/
http://www.webuildpages.com/neat-o/

The alt attribute is meant for people who can not see images in their browser whether it's because they've turned images off or because they have a visual disability. The alt attribute is meant to be a way to provide information to those people. Screen readers will read what's in there so before you add anything to the alt attribute think for a minute about how it will sound to someone who can't see.

Yes, I understand all of this. The question is not whether alt tags should be used (or how), but whether those applicable descriptions should be optimized. Obviously, they are making a difference on the page I'm talking about so they are part of the SEO equation (at least for the time).

My opinion at this point is that alt tags should be written appropriately for the image/link and optimized. If they aren't used by the engines, they will be used by humans. Either is a good thing :)

I just set my settings to subscribe to posts so I am posting this message to keep track of this topic. You can delete this post later. Sorry

You're right Karon. I tend to advise people against using them for keywords since all too often people think that if they stuff them with keywords they'll shoot to page 1 in in the search results. I shouldn't assume that people will, but I guess I've developed the habit. My bad.

I think alt attributes probably have a minor effect in ranking, less with Google and maybe a little more at Yahoo and MSN. I think when there's a legitimate reason to use them outside of a search engine then you might as well optimize them. I think that's true of most things you do on any page. Might as well take advantage of anything you can.

Obviously none of us really knows exactly what any search engine does or doesn't take into account when it comes to where your page ranks, so if there's a possibility of something helping why not optimize it.

I know when I write any of my pages I keep search engines in mind. I don't write the page for a search engine I write it for my visitors, but if it makes sense to mention a keyword somewhere I will. So in place where I am going to write an alt attribute I do add a keyword or two if it still reads well. No reason not to since it will take the same amount of time to use the keyword as it will any other keyword.

But I don't think the the benefit from the alt attributes will be enough to make me go back and re-optimize all my alt attributes on a given page. To me that time would be better spent finding another backlink for the page.

Now, keep in mind that these terms are only getting between 100-200 searches a day. Not the most competitive in the world. And the site I'm testing them on has a good legacy in Google.
I think these are probably the two key points here, Karon.

We all know less competition makes it easier to rank well.

Add in what you're saying about a "good legacy" -- we know Google loves older sites, esp. sites to which it can apply a measure of trust.

You have a nice recipe for ranking well here. :)

Obviously none of us really knows exactly what any search engine does or doesn't take into account when it comes to where your page ranks, so if there's a possibility of something helping why not optimize it.

Right. That makes it all the more intriquing ;) I mean, what kinda boring thread would it be to ask my question and have the answer be, "Yes, they do." The end. :)


I know when I write any of my pages I keep search engines in mind. I don't write the page for a search engine I write it for my visitors, but if it makes sense to mention a keyword somewhere I will.

A man after my own heart!

I don't know if this is a coincidence, but literally about a week after I changed approx. 90% of my alt text to "" I finally made it out of Google's aging delay.

Fancy that. I swear Google was suppressing my pages because I was inadvertantly over utilizing alt text (dumb newbie thing I did when I first put up my site a year ago now).

Anyway, interesting!

Karri

That's funny Karri. I'm guessing it's just coincidence, but you never know. I suppose though if you were stuffing keywords there could have been some kind of suppression by Google.

Karon, when it comes to writing content I never worry about keyword density of much of anything really. I always write for the people that will be reading my pages and articles. All the traffic in the world won't make a difference if onece it gets to your site your words turn it all away.

My on page seo is really simple. I do write a keyword rich title and I'll usually use an <h1> that's similiar or exact to the title. After that I write what I want to say. I will try to mention my keywords a couple of times in the first paragraph or two and also again in the last couple of paragrahs. In between I just write. I mention keywords when it makes sense to, but I never try to get an extra one in there just for the sake of getting it in. I will use headings in my content where it makes sense to and if it makes sense I'll throw a keyword in there. I never really spend more than a minute thinking about it though.

The best part is that a lot of the articles on my site rank pretty well for different terms. Not necessarily driving thousands of visitors my way, but each page does drive some traffic to my site and each new page brings in a few more. I'd rather convert the traffic I get than get a lot of traffic that leaves before the page even finishes loading.

Yes, probably a coincidence but what an ironic one at that!

But geez, a year in the aging delay holding pattern?! No fair! ;)

Karri

But geez, a year in the aging delay holding pattern?! No fair! ;)
Sounds about par for the course, methinks. :)

Karon, when it comes to writing content I never worry about keyword density of much of anything really. I always write for the people that will be reading my pages and articles. All the traffic in the world won't make a difference if onece it gets to your site your words turn it all away.

Who said anything about keyword density? Yuck! That's a misunderstood (and practically useless) measure of SEO copywriting success that generally leaves the site visitor out of the equation.

I agree with writing for the visitors first. That's what I preach in my book, my seminars and everything else I do/say/write.

Keyword density is worthless in google, although still has merit in MSN and Yahoo. I agree with Karen write for the customer and develop a linking strategy to do the rest.

What I was saying is that it is a useless "measure" of SEO copywriting success. Just because you have a KWD of 7% (or whatever) does not mean your page will rank high in any engine. As with all other elements of SEO, copywriting is but one factor in the equation.

Keyword density is worthless in google, although still has merit in MSN and Yahoo.
Yahoo and MSN are both more heavily-influenced by on-page factors, for sure. Keyword density could be considered one of those, but it is just one factor.

Google still appears to value the use of related words and phrases -- synonyms, etc. And yeah, that's just one small factor, too.

All I meant by bringing up keyword density is that there are much better ways to spend your time. Sorry if I took the thread off topic a litte, though isn't the whole idea of adding keywords to alt attributes about raising keyword density.

Oh, no problem.

We may need a new thread about this if it progresses :) but to answer your question, no.

Adding keywords to alt tags is about positioning, not about the sheer volume of times you can stick keywords somewhere. Matt Cutts recently stated that Google is more concerned with where keywords are in a document than how many times the keywords are included. (Paraphrase.) This has been the case with Google for years now. So, my original question about alt tags was because I noticed a position to place keywords that previously had not seemed relevant.

I agree that keyword positioning is more important then keyword density (there I go mentioning it again). I'm not sure how alt attibutes relate to positioning though since they're just going to appear where you've placed your images. Of course with a css layout you can position any of your elements wherever you want within your document.

I realize placing keywords in alt attributes does put them in a different position on the page than content alone, but I've always taken keyword positioning as something about the location of the keywords as far as appearing at the top of the document or at the bottom of the document or somewhere in between.

In that sense it would be more about where your image falls within the overall document structure than whether or not there are keywords in the alt attribute. I may be misinterpreting though. Alt attributes always struck me as more of a density thing.

By the way I know it's only been a few more days, but have you noticed any more changes in where your page is ranking for keyword 1 and keyword 2?

I've always taken keyword positioning as something about the location of the keywords as far as appearing at the top of the document or at the bottom of the document or somewhere in between.

No, "positioning" does not relate to top of page, bottom of page, etc. It is about putting content in header tags, in bullet lists, in photo captions and in other specially-designated spots that only "important" information goes. The spider will find the text regardless of where (top, bottom) it is geographically on the page, but the positioning of text in headlines (for example) gives added weight because it means that information is important. It also means you are generally telling what the page is about.

Your page title isn't shown in the body copy either, but it carries a ton of weight.

I guess I was thinking of something else then. I do think there is some effect though minor as to where keywords appear in order in your content, but perhaps positioning isn't the right term for it. I want to say it's prominence, but maybe that's not it either.

I absolutely agree about page titles. It's the most important place you can have a keyword on any page. If you don't get your keywords in your page title you haven't optimized the page for those keywords.

Latest stats...

Keyword #1 - vanished! Not in the top 50.

Keyword #2 - dropped to position #25.

Let me say something before we continue. I do not normally encourage the practice of checking your rankings daily. Rankings fluctuate all the time for a wide range of reasons. But, in this case, I'm checking regularly for these two keyphrases because of this little experiment. :)

Sounds like the alt atributes aren't making much difference given that keyword 1 is dropping. Of course with keyword 2 dropping that isn't the best endorsement for the title which I think we'd agree is very important.

Could also be some normal fluctuations at Google too. I've been hearing a few people the last few days mentioning they've seen their ranking jump around a bit.

And I agree completely about not checking every day. I look every so often out of curiosity or to see if I can learn something, but not everyday.

OK, today keyword #2 has moved up 1 notch to #16. Keyword #1 has all but vanished still. The page is not showing in the top 50. So, to see if I could increase rankings for keyword #2, I went in and changed the alt tags from keyword 1 to keyword 2. They are legit tags, with meaning. I also added keyword 2 to the copy.

Stay tuned. :)