I wasn't aiming at starting a lengthy discussuion on whether to use frames or not. SEO-wise I'm sure frames are not an advantage, but on the other hand, so far nobody has been able to convince me (facts please), that they're a disadvantage either. That is if you know how to overcome the technical obstacles that frames certainly do pose. The question is: Why should searchengines dislike frames as long as they get some good content and a nice site to spider?
IMO using frames is mostly a design-issue. You can accomplish things that to my poor knowledge would be difficult without frames. Say you have a map in a lefthand fixed frame and a lengthy copy with a scrollbar in the righthand frame. As the map stays put you can reference locations on the map anywhere from the copy. The user can see the map all the time as he scrolls down the righthand frame. Or you can use the fixed frame for displaying slideshows relevant to some point in the copy.
In my site
(now in beta-release), about a small island in Denmark, these are exactly the benefits I cherish. Visit any of the subpages to see what I mean. Slideshow = "More pictures".
Scottie points out that
A real problem is that often frames hide that additional content because people overlook the internal scroll bar.
I don't agree to that as long as the scrolling frame is the rightmost frame.
So, use frames for special purposes only, but don't fear they will severely hurt your rankings. My old (frames) site gets tons of traffic, even though it's build poorly from a technical point of view. The new site is expected to do even better. Other SEO-issues like the title-tag, copy and incoming links are a lot more important. And you don't need tricks to get high rankings with frames. Just do things right.