12 replies to this topic

[Richard]

It seems that framesets might just have the edge with SEO, but what is the best rout to take?

The holding frame has no content so should it be meta-tagged? maybe especially so, because the title and description will have 100% density. So what about the title page that has low content focussed density? Then of course the main page that should have selected keywords? Is there a specific routine with frameset pages that does NOT cause the SEs to ignore crawling due to spamming etc?

Thanks Richard

[qwerty]

I'm curious about why you think framesets give you an edge in SEO. My opinion has always been that their problems outweigh their benefits. I've seen plenty of people argue that framesets don't need to be a problem, but I've never been convinced that it was better to use them than not to.

[Richard]

I cannot speak for or against the seo benefits of frames. All I can say is that I have a site that uses frames and is not SEO either. However. I am shocked to see a number of my pages ranked in googles first page top 10 in a search--- without any effort on my part. I can only conclude that relevant content and keyword density plays a major part. I should also add that my main content pages are designed to be served outside of the frameset as well as connected, having a link to reconnect them with the parent frame and home IF the viewer wants to check things out further. Therefore they load real fast and serve the viewer with just what they serched for. I guess S/Es like them because the pages are ONLY 'relevant content' based and not surrounded with the usual graphic garbage that accompanies many 'normal' site pages, . That's my limited experience, and I make no claims to cleverness!

My question referes to a new site where ALL pages are redirected back to the index ( they are viewed in iframes on the index page) If I gave each of these 'inner pages' the identical title and description of my main site, and a short introduction and home page link in the no-frames tag, would that be spamming and a S/E No-No? Technically what I suggest seems correct and fair, because The home page is where the referred page will be displayed in context of the iframe.

Thanks for your advice,

Richard

Edited by Richard, 14 October 2003 - 10:13 AM.

[awall19]

I see little reason why you would use the same title on every page. Google and most other popular search engines cluster their results so that no more than two results from any site show right together at the top of the list.

By changing the titles you can capture a larger audience by being well ranked on many different search queries.

Why would I want to list well only for "peanut butter" when I could also list well for "natural peanut butter" "peanut butter recipies" "home made peanut butter" and "peanut butter is god" ?

[Richard]

Yep ... see your point. thanks for the comment

[bwelford]

I'm still a little confused. If the frameset child pages can be the listings in a SERP and will look OK when you click on the link, then why do you need the frameset parent frame?

[Richard]

I think there is a need to cater for the information grazer who only wants his search terms addressed and then leaves regardeless of any entisements and the more enquiring browser who has the time and interest to look further into the site. My site is NOT commercial so Im not driving towards an order form or target page.

The child pages have minimal graphics and navigation served in a small include section at the bottom. Child pages simply serve content to the viewer. If the content does stir further interest the viewer can enter the site more fully through the framed version links to home and have the benefits of browsing with a hirachical menu system. It serves the 'hit & run' and the 'come in for liesurly browse' surfer. They can choose!

I'm not beating a drum for frames; this is just my setup that seems to work.

[awall19]

Frames may make it easier to make the site, but it makes it harder on most other things...like search engines.

It is not hard to pull the navigation out of frames and make it a small part of every page. Using CSS you can even cause much of the page layout to be loaded only once, which would save most of the time frames do anyway... Plus using a CSS file will make all of your content eaiser to change the format of quickly.

Frames really are not worth the hastle.

[Richard]

Absolutely! "If I knew then (2 years ago) what I know now ..." My next job is to menu the content with ssi and css. Bear in mind that it was my second site as a total novice and made in FrontPage, when I thought W3C was a post code in London! I'm still on the css learning curve right now, hence my continued use of frames.

[fred]

Hi

when you bookmark a framed site

the main page is bookmark not the content pages right ?

I mean if you book mark a page that you like the content , you might be instead marking the main page ? Am I right ?

[bwelford]

Hi Fred,
I don't know whether this is system or browser dependent. I have Windows XP and Internet Explorer. For Framed webpages, both a Desktop Shortcut and adding to Favourites gives me the child page of the frameset without the frame.

[qwerty]

I've never used this, but I've seen it recommended a number of times: The Self-Referencing Frameset. I believe it fixes problems with bookmarks and orphaned content pages.

[chrishirst]

It certainly fixes the orphaned page problem. Examples from an existing framed site I'm currently updating for a new client.


Page without SRF;
http://www.laptopbit...Car_Charger.htm

Page with SRF;
http://www.laptopbit...020-UK-1816.htm


Chris.