Where is the line for hidden text?

I have been coming across some sites that really skirt the line when it comes to hidden text. How is it decided whether they are violating the TOS

In my opinion this site:
http://www.access-investment-property.com/
is basicly hiding their text but if you look really close the shade of red is slightly different but you have to really examine the thing (maybe my monitor)

Although not technically hidden, should this member be allowed? Surely they are showing their intention for participation by putting up their links in this way.

If no-one else thinks they are hidden, then I apologize for posting the link.

 

This is hiding if you ask me.

 

I was going to say:
I don't think they're purposefully trying to hide the links - it's just bad site design.
I mean, they've put the 'useful sites:' bit in black so it's obvious there are supposed to be links there.
I thought that the color was the same as used for some of the other links on the site.

But after looking at the source, they're specifically setting the advert links to that color - with their own css class just for the ads. So they are choosing that color on purpose, whether it's with the aim of actually hiding the ads I'm not convinced.

 

Why do people do crap like this?

They should get kicked out.

jlawrence , give me a break, they have white text, and all of the sudden the coop ads are in a dark red.

They are hiding them, no doubt

 

fryman, take a look at their css source. They're using alsorts of stupid colors for links. I'm not convinced that they're hiding on purpose.
I take your point about the white text, but that's about the only sensible color being used.

For example, on the front page. They've got a pinkish background and links are in a slightly darker pink - plain crazy.

 

This is an advertising network. Are those links being advertised? If you had paid $100 to that site's owner to advertise your links, wouldn't you be pissed off? Would you accept an "Oh, don't worry, it is just sloppy coding" excuse?

 

If I paid to have adverts on a site that does 'sloppy' coding like that ?
I'd sack my marketing man - hmmm, that's me.

The question by yfs1 was 'do you think they are hiding the links', I don't think they are on purpose - I just think it's sloppy coding. I'd actually refer to it as something other than sloppy.

I'm not saying that shawn shouldn't send an email telling them to change the color of the links, I'm just saying that I think it's general incompetence rather than actually trying to hide the links.

 

hmm .. i think this is hiding ..
you could just miss out that "useful sites" in black also if you are not careful enough

 

They are hiding them, I didn't even see them without highlighting.

What is the point? It's taking without giving.

I'm sure if all their links on other peoples sites were done the same they would soon shout loud enough.

 

Their design is well made. So they know what they are doing. They are cheating the Coop.

 

I think they know what they are doing. In my opinion they should at least get their ads stopped until they've fixed the shade of their text.

 

I have to go with the bad color choice opion. I've made some links glow in the dark(yellows on blue background), so I can guess someone could make a bad color decision that causes links to blend into their background.

But then I'm nieve.

 

The color code for the link is: #CCCCCC

I've used the same color code on my sites that were in my sig for several months. I've seen others as well.

If you look at the color code in Photoshop, going from top to bottom in the color palette, on a scale from 1-5, it's about a 2 compared to white.

For as long as I had my sites in my signature, no one ever mentioned it and received quite a bit of traffic from my DP sig.

For the record, the site you reference is not mine. I made mine a light blue this morning, since suddenly #CCCCCC became an issue for a few.

 

I don't think it is intentional. I also don't believe that it will dilute any effect that the COOP was designed for.


Google should not see this as hidden links either. So, I think other than aesthetics, thay are playing fairball

 

Only they could say if it was intentional as it could go either way but it does in fact dillute the effect the COOP was designed for. You have nearly no chance of getting a click through from those ads.

If you are refering to any SERPs benefit, then I would agree that it probably would have no ill affect.

The only other affect that comes to mind is the reputation of the Coop Network. I have been seeing more and more posts in other forums about hidden text being allowed. Obviously straight out hidden text isn't but sites like these are fueling that perception. The people posting these false claims have their own agenda but unfortunately it is making some people with sites I would love to see in the network nervous about what else is allowed.

Correct or not, its the perception that counts.

 

All other links on the page are the same colour. Smells of bad design to me. Although the TOS are the TOS.....

 

Yup, your guess is as good as mine. I keep losing site of the fact that these links actually get clicked. So in that regard, yes, the effect is diluted.

Yes that is what I was refering to

Well hidden text may be permissable in some networks but it is NOT a good practice in general, as I am sure you are aware of. I have seen DP members banned from AdSense, penalized in SERPs and cautioned by other COOP members (as you have pointed out) for doing this.
I just stay away from such risky techniques. I'm sure you do to.

 

Its hidden text and it rubbish to say otherwise

- evening

 

I'm on an POS LCD screen. I had to look twice for them. Wouldn't have seen them if I visited the site myself.

They're done, boot em.

 

All sites that are even close to hiding ads should be booted. A footer ad is ok by me if it is clearly visible.