负文本缩进是否被视为隐藏？
我正在使用我学到的负文本缩进技术向用户显示文本图像，同时隐藏相应的实际文本。
这样，用户可以看到精美样式的文本，而搜索引擎仍然可以对其进行索引。
然而，我开始认为这听起来像是伪装，因为我向用户和蜘蛛提供不同的内容。然而，我并没有以欺骗的方式使用它。另外，这似乎是一种流行的技术。
那么它是 SEO 安全的还是隐藏的？
谢谢！
I am using the negative-text-indent technique I learned to show a text-image to the user, while hiding the corresponding actual text.
This way the user sees the fancy styled text while search engines can still index it.
However I am started to think this sounds like cloaking since I am serving different content to the user vs the spider. However, I am not using this in a deceitful way. Plus it seems like this is a popular technique.
So is it SEO-safe or is it cloaking?
Thanks!
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（5）
不，这不是隐形。据我所知，您实际上并没有根据（您认为）客户端是否是爬虫来提供不同的内容。您所提供的内容只是浏览器和蜘蛛对您所提供的内容的解释不同。如果您实际上提供不同的内容，那么为什么要这样做？
我什至可以说这是很好的可访问性实践。屏幕阅读器仍会识别隐藏的文本，文本浏览器将正常显示它，等等。
No, this is not cloaking. From what I can tell, you are not actually serving different content, based on whether (you think) the client is a crawler. The content you are serving is just interpreted differently by browsers than by a spider. If you are actually serving different content, why are you doing this?
I'd even go as far as say that it is good accessibility practice. Screen readers will still pick up on the hidden text, text browsers will show it normally, etcetera.
不，这不是伪装。我认为 Google 的定义是：
您没有提供不同的文件 - 提供给 GoogleBot 的文件内容与提供给用户的文件内容完全相同。
No, this is not cloaking. I think the key phrase in Google's definition is:
You're not serving a different file - the content of the file served to GoogleBot is exactly the same as the content of the file served to users.
Thomas 是对的 - 这不是隐形。 CResult 引用的文本暗示 Cloaking 正在为爬虫和用户提供不同的文件。意思是，对于爬行的上下文，Content = File。因此，如果您提供完全相同的文件，则您不会隐藏任何内容。
如果您提供屏幕外文本并不重要。
内容如何呈现给用户并不重要。文件内的内容并不重要。
Thomas is right - this is not cloaking. CResult's quoted text implies that Cloaking is serving a different files for crawlers and users. Meaning, for the context of crawling, Content = File. Thus, if you serve the exact same file, you are not Cloaking anything.
It doesn't matter if you serve off-screen text.
It doesn't matter how the content is presented to the user. It doesn't matter what is inside the file.
至少一个博客 将Google 帮助页面之一解释为证明谷歌不会批准负缩进。
另外，这个帖子 据说其中引用了谷歌员工关于该主题的内容。
At least one blog interprets one of google's help pages as proof that google would not approve of negative indents.
Also, this post which supposedly has a quote from a google employee on the topic.
这不是隐形。我一直使用图像替换技术。这是有道理的，因为它更容易访问。如果文字与图像所表达的内容相符，那就没问题了。它对图像具有功能性。但是，如果您隐藏了图像上本来没有的图像描述，我会对此感到担忧。替换读起来相同的东西就可以了。我确实使用 ALT 文本，但有时我宁愿将图像作为文本背景并将其缩进屏幕外。它满足相同的要求。
This is NOT cloaking. I use image replacement techniques all the time. It makes sense in the fact it's more accessible. If the text reads what an image says then that's fine. It is functional to the image. If however, you're cloaking a description of the image that is not otherwise on the image anyway, I'd be concerned about that. It's fine to replace things that read the same. I do use ALT text, but sometimes I'd rather have the image as a background on text and indent it off screen. It meets the same requirements.