Is hover text that appears when an image is hovered over (and is hidden when it is not) acceptable?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  John Pitcher: Is hover text that appears when an image is hovered over (and is hidden when it is not) acceptable? Or could this be misinterpreted by Google as deceptive ;due to the fact that ;the CSS hides this text until the image is hovered over?
  
  I sometimes create image galleries where the enlarged hover image has a couple of lines of text underneath. For example, the span text is shunted to the left out of sight by the css until hovered over, eg:
  
  <a class="thumbnail item5" href="#thumb">
  <img src="thumbnailimagename.jpg" width="100%" ><span><img width="100%" src="largeimagename.jpg" >Text that appears only on hover and is hidden by css outside of hover</span></a> ;
  
  Whilst this text is not designed to be keyword stuffed, as it describes the images that are relevant to the page, it does often contain different keywords in the same way that alt text does.
  
  I believe that a manual inspection would show that I'm doing nothing wrong, but am not sure if it would negatively impact any algorithms for spam? (I have just read Google's Search Quality Rating Guidelines where it says on section 2.1 that hidden text is a spam flag and that:
  
  "It may be placed outside the normal viewing area. For example, there may be a large blank space between
  the normal viewing area and a “hidden” area of text all the way at the bottom of the page or far to the right. ")
  
  
  Also, for SEO purposes, does this span text have the same weight/usefulness as alt text or should I have alt text as well? (For image galleries, the span text looks better.)
• 
  Michiel Kikkert: If its helpful to your visitors, Google shouldn't have an issue with it..
• 
  Edwin Jonk: I can see a corner case where Google might take action if there is more text in the hover over, especially when the text is keyword stuffed. But, in general, I wouldn't worry that much.
• 
  John Pitcher: Many thanks +Michiel Kikkert ;and +Edwin Jonk ;- I generally only use 10-25 words of hover text but asked as I have just read Google ; guidelines on how to score a page as spam; one was hidden text off to the right of the screen - and my css for hover text effectively shunts it way off to the left before making it visible on hover.
• 
  Ian Dixon: I take it that by hiver text that you mean using the alt attribute +John Pitcher ;because that is what generally brings up the text.
  Firstly it is useful because it explains to the search engines what the image is. Normally I just put in a title that says what the image is. So, for instance, I post recipes a lot so if I did one for Cheese on Toast then the image title would be that. Essentially I am aiming to rank for cheese on toast so the alt contains it and the post will too.
  
  +Edwin Jonk ;makes a very valid point though because if you try to trick google with keyword stuffing then you are at risk. My basic answer is to think visitor first and google second. If you are doing it right for a visitor then you are more than likely doing it right for google
• 
  John Pitcher: +Ian Dixon ;No - not alt text, span text that is shunted to the left out of sight by the css until hovered over, eg:
  
  <a class="thumbnail item5" href="#thumb">
  <img src="thumbnailimagename.jpg" width="100%" ><span><img width="100%" src="largeimagename.jpg" >Text that appears only on hover and is hidden by css outside of hover</span></a> ;
  
  I tend to use this text in a similar way to alt text - it describes the images and is hidden until it can be displayed at the bottom of the larger image rather than cluttering up thumbnails - and so will naturally contain some keywords (although not stuffed for seo purposes).
  
  I've used this happily in the past but recently read some Google guidelines to their "spam testers" saying to check for text that was hidden to the far right using css. To me, the difference between what I'm doing and what spammers are doing is that users are INTENDED to see the text on hover.
• 
  Ian Dixon: Interesting one +John Pitcher ;to which my initial reaction is that google would see it as suspicious.
  
  Yet a lot of sites use something similar for FAQ pages where you click on the question to get the answer revealed.
  
  It sort of seems like hiding things which Google are known to dislike. Yet it is a valid way to construct a page.
  
  I'm no expert so hopefully some that know more will join in. The hidden text part is something I would like to use but have avoided because of potential SEO issues
• 
  Edwin Jonk: From the expert panel in this weeks SEO Questions hangout on air on 01:39:54 into the YouTube video: https://dumbseoquestions.com/q/is_hover_text_that_appears_when_an_image_is_hovered_over_and_is_hidden_when_it_is_not_acceptable +John Pitcher
  
  The cuetimes listed on this page are functional while the live broadcast continues and also once Youtube has finished processing the public broadcast. Processing time varies between 6-24 hours. During this period the clip is viewable in full but the cuetimes cannot be relied on. ;
  
  If our assistance with this issue was useful to you, please consider sharing your success story so that others might benefit.
• 
  John Pitcher: Many thanks to the panel!
• 
  Devin Peterson: The idea of hiding text is very normal, there are even html elements that specifically do this. <details> and alt and title attributes that display tooltips (for certain browsers) all utilize hidden text and makes them unhidden under certain conditions. Also think about drop-menus, same concept. Google even does it themselves. The way you're doing it might trigger something algorithmically though... I would try to use another method like display: none and change display to whatever's appropriate under the hover class. Reason why I think your way might be risky is because Google specifically uses that as an example of cloaking, ie when you have text that is displayed at -9999px or whatever...
• 
  Ian Dixon: +Devin Peterson ;
  You definitely make interesting points with that comment
  Google certainly do use the hidden text on some of their pages for instance. Yet my understanding is that they also tell people that hidden text is a bad thing. Annoying because it is something that I want to be able to use.
  I can understand Google might get pissy with display:hidden if I try to use that to fool the googlebot. Yet it is also a legitimate part of page design.
  
  AM I being crazy here?
• 
  Devin Peterson: +Ian Dixon ; You are correct and as far as I can tell, not crazy. This is where it comes down to technically understanding how an algorithm would detect cloaking vs hidden text for design purposes. Surely there are ways, if we KNEW the details it might open up room for people to trick it, so it's kept secret. Under those circumstances, I just follow their own formats. Look at their toggle function (http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/htmlcssguide.xml). They use display: none and 'onclick' to show the hidden text. If you can rig up a similar method, then you shouldn't have any reason to worry.
  
  Additionally, I remember seeing +Edwin Jonk ; make a comment about 'single (minor) spam detections' probably wouldn't trigger a spam penalty, so with that in mind I would be even less worried.
  
  New thought here, it occurred to me that Google's algo can probably determine that your hidden text becomes visible quite easily. Therefore, no cloaking or keyword stuffing is detected. I would still use a different method than 'shunting the text' way off to the side for reasons mentioned in my previous comment.
• 
  Edwin Jonk: +Devin Peterson ;just to be clear I didn't advise to hide the main content. But indeed if the main content is within the javascript popup it wouldn't be best practise. So it depends...
• 
  Ian Dixon: +Devin Peterson ;that page you mention from google is certainly going to be worth more of a read tomorrow.
  It certainly does highlight a technique for hiding things until a visitor clicks in the right place.
  On first glance it feels a little clunky and difficult to use. It does somewhat fit into things that I would occasionally like to do though,
  
  +Edwin Jonk ;perhaps this is something for you guys to talk over on Thursday. Mu own view is that using display:none to hide something then using javascript to make it visible when the user clicks can be a way to create a good user experience. Can be a problem as well as they may not have javascript which raises the question of how to code a page that will work with and without it.
  
  The perils of trying to design a web page!