<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ALT Tag</title>
	<link>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php</link>
	<description>SEO Blog is a blog with a purpose</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: duz</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator>duz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Dec 2006 10:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-117</guid>
		<description>There is no problem putting keywords in alt tags but there can be a problem with 'alt tag spamming' or 'alt tag stuffing'. I say 'can be' because there are examples of the abuse of the alt tag which occur regularly in the SERPs which appear to have gone un-penalized by the search engines. So it's not so much pointing to a threshold and saying if you only do this you're ok but if you do this you will be penalized. It's more to do with 'risk vs reward' and all we know for sure is that using the alt tag in the legitimate way as described above involves 'no risk'. Experience also tells us that the presence or absence of alt tags makes very little difference for non-clickable images and for clickable images it is treated as anchor text. So there is no big reward in 'alt tag spamming' but there is an element of risk. Some people who have got away with light spamming of the alt-tags for years will say the risk is low and then there are others who are convinced that it was this practice that got them banned. My take is simply that the risk is not worth the reward now and as the SE algos improve and more people become aware of filing spam reports the risk can only become greater in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no problem putting keywords in alt tags but there can be a problem with &#8216;alt tag spamming&#8217; or &#8216;alt tag stuffing&#8217;. I say &#8216;can be&#8217; because there are examples of the abuse of the alt tag which occur regularly in the SERPs which appear to have gone un-penalized by the search engines. So it&#8217;s not so much pointing to a threshold and saying if you only do this you&#8217;re ok but if you do this you will be penalized. It&#8217;s more to do with &#8216;risk vs reward&#8217; and all we know for sure is that using the alt tag in the legitimate way as described above involves &#8216;no risk&#8217;. Experience also tells us that the presence or absence of alt tags makes very little difference for non-clickable images and for clickable images it is treated as anchor text. So there is no big reward in &#8216;alt tag spamming&#8217; but there is an element of risk. Some people who have got away with light spamming of the alt-tags for years will say the risk is low and then there are others who are convinced that it was this practice that got them banned. My take is simply that the risk is not worth the reward now and as the SE algos improve and more people become aware of filing spam reports the risk can only become greater in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: weikelbob</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>weikelbob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-116</guid>
		<description>Alt tags are seem to be a widely misunderstood area of SEO, since many big SEO companies insist on putting keywords in alt tags.

If someone asks, how do you know not to spam an alt tag with keywords, what evidence can I give them to use alt tags as you've outlined above?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alt tags are seem to be a widely misunderstood area of SEO, since many big SEO companies insist on putting keywords in alt tags.</p>
<p>If someone asks, how do you know not to spam an alt tag with keywords, what evidence can I give them to use alt tags as you&#8217;ve outlined above?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: duz</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator>duz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-75</guid>
		<description>Forcing keywords into the alt tag is a waste of time. The alt tag is for users of talking browsers, screen readers, text browsers or browsers on small devices. As I said above "...if you write perfect alt text for a blind user it will be perfect for SEO as well". If it happens to (naturally) include your keywords for that page that's fine, if it doesn't that's fine too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forcing keywords into the alt tag is a waste of time. The alt tag is for users of talking browsers, screen readers, text browsers or browsers on small devices. As I said above &#8220;&#8230;if you write perfect alt text for a blind user it will be perfect for SEO as well&#8221;. If it happens to (naturally) include your keywords for that page that&#8217;s fine, if it doesn&#8217;t that&#8217;s fine too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kirtan</title>
		<link>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>kirtan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.seo-blog.com/alt-tag.php#comment-73</guid>
		<description>Some Search engine optmization tools recommends to have keywords in first 3 alt attributes. can you explain more about this? please?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some Search engine optmization tools recommends to have keywords in first 3 alt attributes. can you explain more about this? please?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
