18 replies to this topic

[webstream]

On a web page that is all graphic images and Flash is it okay to include a noscript section with text and links? I saw that on a web site and I am wondering how the search engines spiders would react to that today.

Thanks!

[Jill]

Sure, if the info and links reflect the same info contained in the images and flash.

[webstream]

Sure, if the info and links reflect the same info contained in the images and flash.

Jill, you are fast!

No, what I noticed was there were links to other parts of the web site in the noscript section that did not appear anywhere else on the page.

Just wondering how the SEs would parse and react to that. Since noscript text does not show on most browsers today I would think in a many situations the search engines might consider that deceptive.

Thanks!

[Jill]

Most likely they wouldn't catch it on their own, but I think they might consider it search engine spam. Sometimes competitors rat that sort of thing out. Still doesn't mean they would do anything though.

But my opinion is that it would technically be search engine spam.

[webstream]

Most likely they wouldn't catch it on their own, but I think they might consider it search engine spam. Sometimes competitors rat that sort of thing out. Still doesn't mean they would do anything though.

But my opinion is that it would technically be search engine spam.

I read some where that search engines will consider links inside the noscript tags as "noindex, nofollow". Is there any truth to that?

[Jill]

Not to my knowledge, no.

[Alan Perkins]

No, what I noticed was there were links to other parts of the web site in the noscript section that did not appear anywhere else on the page.

Just wondering how the SEs would parse and react to that. Since noscript text does not show on most browsers today I would think in a many situations the search engines might consider that deceptive.

Search engines will not assume deception in this instance.

Those links may have appeared in the Flash movie. Or they may have been links to a part of the site designed for browsers that don't support Flash or Javascript. So, although NOSCRIPT can be used to deceive, it can't be assumed that it is being used in that way.

[webstream]

Search engines will not assume deception in this instance.

Those links may have appeared in the Flash movie. Or they may have been links to a part of the site designed for browsers that don't support Flash or Javascript. So, although NOSCRIPT can be used to deceive, it can't be assumed that it is being used in that way.

I agree there is a reason to insert noscript section when using Flash. In the situation I observed the page was all graphic images and underneath there was a noscript section filled with text and a bunch of links. Many of the links were not used anywhere else on the page. This made me wonder how the search engines would interpret the links and text within the noscript. After all, how many user's browsers don't have Javascript enabled browsers?

[Alan Perkins]

I agree there is a reason to insert noscript section when using Flash. In the situation I observed the page was all graphic images...

Ah, that's a bit different. Your first post said:

On a web page that is all graphic images and Flash is it okay to include a noscript section with text and links?

[1dmf]

<NOSCRIPT> tag is for displaying content specifically for browsers that are either incapable of running scripts or the functionality has been switched off.

it is irrelivant how much of the site is made up of images, flash, text or anything else, its usage it quite clear and simple.

If a browser cannot run scripts then parse the HTML between the tags, plain and simple, and as long as the content inbetween the tags is valid markup, what ever the contents is , is the contents, now if some choose to try to game a system by using the noscript tag for keyword stuffing or similar, then they are incorrectly using the tag and thus giving a diservice to their visitors.

But to arbitarily penalise a page for having content between the noscript tag, would be a clear indication of the lack of understanding of what the tag is used for.

[jehochman]

Search engines control their indexes, so they can do whatever they want. If you feel that search engines try to provide the most relevant search results to their visitors, you may conclude that they will potentially view NOSCRIPT tags, or other HTML markup, based on how it is used. Tags are neither good nor bad.

If a tag is used to produce an irrelevant search result, such as a page where the target content is not visible, but has been encapsulated in a NOSCRIPT tag, then yes, that should be penalized. If a tag is used to provide HTML content for visitors who don't run JavaScript (where the JavaScript shows equivalent content), then that is a good thing.

If you use JavaScript to deploy Flash, NOSCRIPT is a potentially legitimate method of providing accessibility.

[webstream]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

I have always seen and understood the real purpose of NOSCRIPT tags but this site made be think can it be misused and will they get caught. I can remember seeing sites using absolute positioning that mapped div sections off the page and were filled with keyword text. It appears there a some people are dumb enough to try deploying a similar tactic using NOSCRIPT tags.

Anyway, thanks!

[1dmf]

Yes, like anything webstream , it can be open to abuse and some will always try to put a square peg in a round hole.

The other argument to Jonothans comment , though is you get irreivent search results from the noscript tag whether you want it or not, if the SE's are going to apply weight to the noscript content.

Generally I use the noscript tag to tell visitors that the site uses JS and if you want to benefit from all the features the site has to offer you need to enable JS if possible and refresh your browser.

Now if the SE is using this text to work out keyword relevancy , well don't the last thing my page wants to do is rank for 'please turn on javascript and refresh your browser', so by Jonothans defenition , I now have crap and bogus search terms attached to my page.

remember JS against W3C Accesability guidlines means JS shouldn't be used to produce content, but enhance user experience, so where ever possible, standard X/HTML/CSS should be used for content.

So if you have a page with a menu navigation that only works with JS switched on and the only way you can offer an alternative navigation is with hyperlinks to the website page structure, then that's what should be in the noscript tag.

But perhaps the real solution is working out a way of having the same menu structure without JS switched on so then there is no need to have different menu navigation code in the noscript tag.

[Andy_Seo]

Hi all,

Found this thread and thought I would ask a question about <noscript>. Now please be patient with me as I do NOT have control over this and will not be making any changes to the CMS. I DO NOT want the <no script> tag (which contains a META refresh) crawled - is there anyway I can restrict Googlebot from crawling it? Now - it's unlikely that this may be changed (so any changes to server side code is appreciate but it won't be implemented), so I'm hoping for a kinda 'rel=nofollow' solution.

Cheers guys.

*Edit - Sorry I do not have control.

Edited by Andy_Seo, 14 November 2008 - 10:14 AM.

[Jill]

If the noscript tag is there and you can't remove it, and it contains a meta refresh, then that's what the engines will see and do, refresh.

Not really sure what sort of thing you were thinking you could do if you don't have any control of anything.