- Jun. 29th, 2006
- 2 comments
What really stops anyone from using a CSS-based layout, throwing up some spammy content, then using CSS with all sorts of positioning to hide it? Spiders can read CSS now, and you'll get busted, right? Perhaps.
But what if one were to place the CSS in a file and exclude that file via robots.txt? To make it look even less like subtrefuge, simply place the CSS file in your images folder or something. Assuming Google actually honors the robots exclusion protocol, wouldn't that permit one to spam with immunity?
Again, I'm not a black hat, but isn't that a logical conclusion?
I don't see it as a spam signature, either. Obviously, don't exclude the CSS file explicitly; rather, exclude the directory it resides in. Also, do not use the same directory name every time. It just "happens" that you put it there. Some examples would be /includes, /resources, /images, /pics, /tumadre, etc. Someone could rat you out, but that would take human time — it couldn't be automatic.
I just think it's rather odd that you can categorically remove the possibility of getting nailed by an automated CSS spam checker simply by not permitting the spider to access the CSS itself. In fact, if I were a search engine, I'd assert that it's part of the page and therefore not a valid exclusion within the protocol. But they (Google, Yahoo, MSN) do appear to honor robots.txt for CSS as well. Theoretically it could be a red flag, but I'm sure many sites exclude their CSS just because it happens to reside in an excluded directory. So it's not much of a red flag, either.
Is it really that simple, though? People get banned for CSS spam every day by automated checks; that seems pretty pathetic if it's this easy to avoid it. For the most part, manual bans and penalties are rare, and that's a wide-open door for spamming.
"2 Wise Comments Banged Out Somewhere On The Internet ..."