[uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Tue Jul 3 11:23:53 PDT 2007
In message <46898F8C.7090108 at splintered.co.uk>, Patrick H. Lauke
<redux at splintered.co.uk> writes
>Paul Wilkins wrote:
>> You could try the FAQ.
>> Where it says:
>> Q. Given that Google now looks at hidden content as potential spam,
>>will invisible microformats be considered spam?
>> A. It is advisable not to hide information in your site, regardless
>>of whether it is microformated or not. Microformats provide a
>>mechanism for marking up visible content. Any mechanism for embedding
>>invisible or hidden content risks being considered spam due to the
>>fact that invisible (meta)data inevitably ends up being abused. Avoid
>>invisible (meta)data. Publish visible data.
>FUD. Will Google attempt to parse the complex interplay of CSS and
>(X)HTML for each page to determine if content is somehow hidden? No.
>Currently, the way it works is that somebody reports a page to Google,
>and their team investigates it (cfr the case of BMW in Germany a while
>ago). There's human judgement involved, and not an automated "hidden =
I've updated the FAQ to reflect that.
I've still seen no citation for any *prohibition* of hidden data in
More information about the microformats-discuss