Could some one please explain to me if it is advisable or not to use frames when trying to be found by Google? I thought it was not advisable but some people say there is no problem using frames, but they can't explain me why. I always thought that the content of frames cannot be seen by Google (not in cache). But is that true?
Kippie
Subscribe to HRA Now!
SEO Class in Chicago, IL
Learn How To Optimize Your Website on July 26, 2013
Looking for personalized in-depth SEO training among your peers?
High Rankings is offering a 1-day customized SEO training class in Chicago. Class size is limited so please sign-up now if you want in!
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE!
www.CustomReportSharing.com
From the folks who brought you High Rankings!
More SEO Content
International SEM | Social Media | Search Friendly Design | SEO | Paid Search / PPC | Seminars | Forum Threads | Q&A | Copywriting | Keyword Research | Web Analytics / Conversions | Blogging | Dynamic Sites | Linking | SEO Services | Site Architecture | Search Engine Spam | Wrap-ups | Business Issues | HRA Questions | Online Courses
Can Frames Be Combined With Google?
Started by
kippie
, Mar 18 2004 06:07 AM
17 replies to this topic
#2
SearchRank
-
- Active Members
-
- 2,333 posts
HR 7
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
Posted 18 March 2004 - 09:49 AM
Welcome, kippie ! 
Frames are really an old school technology. IMO there is really no reason at all to use frames in a web structure. People typically use them so they can have the navigation on one page and the content on another and then if they need to make a change to the navigational menu, all they have to change is one file. However, it is better to use include files to do this.
The problem with frames is that there is usually no content in the source code for a search engine to understand what the site is about. The code usually just designates the sizing of the frameset and which page goes where.
If one must have frames, then the way to optimize it is to place all the code from an optimized inner page in between the <no frames> tags. Once would copy all the code from an inner page from the opening <body> tag to the closing </body> tag.
Frames are really an old school technology. IMO there is really no reason at all to use frames in a web structure. People typically use them so they can have the navigation on one page and the content on another and then if they need to make a change to the navigational menu, all they have to change is one file. However, it is better to use include files to do this.
The problem with frames is that there is usually no content in the source code for a search engine to understand what the site is about. The code usually just designates the sizing of the frameset and which page goes where.
If one must have frames, then the way to optimize it is to place all the code from an optimized inner page in between the <no frames> tags. Once would copy all the code from an inner page from the opening <body> tag to the closing </body> tag.
#3
K.S. Katz
-
- Active Members
-
- 172 posts
HR 4
Posted 18 March 2004 - 10:21 AM
Another frame alternative is to use CSS Design to simulate frames by setting absolute positions in the div id.
In the HTML
In the CSS
Great example of this technique in use is: http://www.csszengar.../079.css&page=0
Just keep in mind that with CSS you might have some compatibility issues with older browsers.
In the HTML
<div id="name">INSERT TEXT HERE</div>
In the CSS
#name {position:absolute;left:20px;top:145px;width:222px;height:298px;overflow:auto;}
Great example of this technique in use is: http://www.csszengar.../079.css&page=0
Just keep in mind that with CSS you might have some compatibility issues with older browsers.
#4
SmellieNellie
-
- Active Members
-
- 559 posts
HR 6
- Location:Wrexham, North Wales
Posted 18 March 2004 - 10:23 AM
Hi kippie
In my little 'ole opinion frames are not good practice. Without the <no frames></no frames> tags or without it being used correctly, search engine spiders cannot see your site content. So as searchrank has said you need to copy your entire content in between these tags.
My own personal preference is to design a template that I then add to each page so that I can easily change the navigational information without having to change each page.
Also with frames, the spiders cannot read your navigational links unless they are also included within the <no frames> tags which is no good if you want them to be able to index more than one page as they need to be able to read and follow the links to do this.
They can also cause users problems when they want to print a page.
Jill has done an article on this on this site if you search on "frames" and select articles.
Hope this helps.
In my little 'ole opinion frames are not good practice. Without the <no frames></no frames> tags or without it being used correctly, search engine spiders cannot see your site content. So as searchrank has said you need to copy your entire content in between these tags.
My own personal preference is to design a template that I then add to each page so that I can easily change the navigational information without having to change each page.
Also with frames, the spiders cannot read your navigational links unless they are also included within the <no frames> tags which is no good if you want them to be able to index more than one page as they need to be able to read and follow the links to do this.
They can also cause users problems when they want to print a page.
Jill has done an article on this on this site if you search on "frames" and select articles.
Hope this helps.
#5
SmellieNellie
-
- Active Members
-
- 559 posts
HR 6
- Location:Wrexham, North Wales
#6
Jill
-
- Admin
-
- 32,379 posts
High Rankings Advisor
Posted 18 March 2004 - 12:31 PM
Google does seem to index and crawl through framed sites these days, even without using the <noframes> tag.
You do want to use self-referencing framesets, however, as per Alan Perkin's article which is posted somewhere around here!
Not sure about the other engines.
At any rate, I personally don't like framed sites. They are sooooo ugly!
Jill
You do want to use self-referencing framesets, however, as per Alan Perkin's article which is posted somewhere around here!
Not sure about the other engines.
At any rate, I personally don't like framed sites. They are sooooo ugly!
Jill
#7
torka
-
- Moderator
-
- 4,408 posts
Vintage Babe
- Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)
Posted 18 March 2004 - 02:01 PM
Here's one of several threads discussing the self-referencing frameset technique, for those who might be interested.
I've used it myself on a minor "hobby" site and have found it to work exactly as advertised, in that all the major engines seem to be able to spider it, it's accessible, and I don't have to waste time duplicating content or navigation using NOFRAMES.
(And I'm not just saying that to suck up to Alan 
) I actually use a combination of frames and SSI which makes updating this site a breeze.
I use frames on this particular site because the site features some longish pages, and the frames allow the navigation to stay static on the page while the content is allowed to scroll. Yes, I know I could break up the content into several shorter chunks, thereby minimizing the effect of the navigation scrolling offscreen. But this works just as well and it minimizes the disruption in the "flow" for the site visitors.
Framed sites don't have to be ugly, any more than "accessible" sites have to be plain text (Jakob Nielsen's site notwithstanding
). As with anything else, frames are simply a tool, and the beauty and utility of the results rest to a large extent upon the skill of the craftsperson wielding the tool. Not that I'm claiming to be the Norm Abram of framesets or anything, but in the case of the site I referred to above, there's no immediate visual difference apparent to the visitor between the framed site and a site created with tables or CSS. Visually, it's just a plain-ol' left-hand-navigation, right-hand-content site with no extraneous frame borders or any other visual cues to reveal its "frame-ness". At least, not until you start scrolling the content and the navigation stays in place. I admit, it's not exactly the most imaginative layout, but I don't think it's necessarily unattractive...
MHO, of course. YMMV.
--Torka
I've used it myself on a minor "hobby" site and have found it to work exactly as advertised, in that all the major engines seem to be able to spider it, it's accessible, and I don't have to waste time duplicating content or navigation using NOFRAMES.
(And I'm not just saying that to suck up to Alan ) I actually use a combination of frames and SSI which makes updating this site a breeze.I use frames on this particular site because the site features some longish pages, and the frames allow the navigation to stay static on the page while the content is allowed to scroll. Yes, I know I could break up the content into several shorter chunks, thereby minimizing the effect of the navigation scrolling offscreen. But this works just as well and it minimizes the disruption in the "flow" for the site visitors.
Framed sites don't have to be ugly, any more than "accessible" sites have to be plain text (Jakob Nielsen's site notwithstanding
). As with anything else, frames are simply a tool, and the beauty and utility of the results rest to a large extent upon the skill of the craftsperson wielding the tool. Not that I'm claiming to be the Norm Abram of framesets or anything, but in the case of the site I referred to above, there's no immediate visual difference apparent to the visitor between the framed site and a site created with tables or CSS. Visually, it's just a plain-ol' left-hand-navigation, right-hand-content site with no extraneous frame borders or any other visual cues to reveal its "frame-ness". At least, not until you start scrolling the content and the navigation stays in place. I admit, it's not exactly the most imaginative layout, but I don't think it's necessarily unattractive...MHO, of course. YMMV.
--Torka
#8
SearchRank
-
- Active Members
-
- 2,333 posts
HR 7
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
Posted 18 March 2004 - 03:26 PM
Another problem with framed sites is that when the inner pages do get indexed and show up in the SERPs, a person will click thru and land on the inner page but there usually is no navigation to get anywhere else on the site. They either have to adjust the address in their address bar so it goes back to the home page or they just leave.
#9
Jill
-
- Admin
-
- 32,379 posts
High Rankings Advisor
Posted 18 March 2004 - 04:20 PM
David, that's where the self-referencing part comes in. You don't have that problem.
And Torka as to this:
Consider myself slapped! :doh:
And Torka as to this:
Framed sites don't have to be ugly, any more than "accessible" sites have to be plain text
Consider myself slapped! :doh:
#10
torka
-
- Moderator
-
- 4,408 posts
Vintage Babe
- Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)
Posted 18 March 2004 - 04:26 PM
Naah, just poked with the Soft Pillow a bit.
(Next, it'll be THE COMFY CHAIR...)
Yeah, and what Jill said about bookmarking. With self-referential frameset pages, visitors can bookmark the internal pages and they still redraw themselves with all the frame stuff around them. It really is a snazzy technique. Wish I'd thought of it myself...
--Torka
(Next, it'll be THE COMFY CHAIR...)
Yeah, and what Jill said about bookmarking. With self-referential frameset pages, visitors can bookmark the internal pages and they still redraw themselves with all the frame stuff around them. It really is a snazzy technique. Wish I'd thought of it myself...
--Torka
#11
Ron Carnell
-
- Moderator
-
- 959 posts
HR 6
- Location:Michigan USA
Posted 18 March 2004 - 08:58 PM
Visitors can bookmark internal page *IF* they know how. Most, I think, will end up trying to do it with a traditional left-click, though, and end up bookmarking the frameset. And then will wonder what happened to the wonderful page they spent so much time finding. Most will get equally frustrated should they try to print a framed page.
Not to mention that maybe 8 to 10 percent of the people who find you in a search engine will have JavaScript disabled, defeating the self-referencing code, and never see the navigation?
If I had to make a list of the most user-unfriendly things invented for the Web, I think it would be scrolling marques, blinking text, and frames. And pretty much in that order, too.
My memory is probably a little fuzzy, but I recall frames being introduced in Netscape 2.0 to eliminate the completely linear, one-thing-after-another flow of the original browsers. Frames allowed us to design with rows and columns, a choice we didn't have before frames, and was really cool stuff. My very first web site was in frames.
Then Netscape 3.0 came out with this great idea called tables.
Not to mention that maybe 8 to 10 percent of the people who find you in a search engine will have JavaScript disabled, defeating the self-referencing code, and never see the navigation?
If I had to make a list of the most user-unfriendly things invented for the Web, I think it would be scrolling marques, blinking text, and frames. And pretty much in that order, too.
My memory is probably a little fuzzy, but I recall frames being introduced in Netscape 2.0 to eliminate the completely linear, one-thing-after-another flow of the original browsers. Frames allowed us to design with rows and columns, a choice we didn't have before frames, and was really cool stuff. My very first web site was in frames.
Then Netscape 3.0 came out with this great idea called tables.
#12
Scottie
-
- Admin
-
- 6,294 posts
Psycho Mom
- Location:Columbia, SC
Posted 18 March 2004 - 10:01 PM
A quick semi-defence of frames:
I find frames are invaluable if you are:
a) Designing a browser-based application. Frames keep the controls in place. Yes, there are online apps that use frames badly and yes, you can use CSS to do similar things but frames don't have as many of those nasty compatibility issues that you will run across when getting tricky with CSS.
B) You have huge text-heavy pages. I'm not talking 800-1000 words, I'm talking huge documents like legal documents or research studies that for some reason or another should not be broken into separate pages. Frames will keep the user from scrolling forever to continue navigating the site.
Other than that, you are better off without them. :)
I find frames are invaluable if you are:
a) Designing a browser-based application. Frames keep the controls in place. Yes, there are online apps that use frames badly and yes, you can use CSS to do similar things but frames don't have as many of those nasty compatibility issues that you will run across when getting tricky with CSS.
B) You have huge text-heavy pages. I'm not talking 800-1000 words, I'm talking huge documents like legal documents or research studies that for some reason or another should not be broken into separate pages. Frames will keep the user from scrolling forever to continue navigating the site.
Other than that, you are better off without them. :)
#13
puskas
-
- Members
-
- 14 posts
HR 2
Posted 19 March 2004 - 01:51 AM
I know this is an old, infected debate among webmasters, but frames just gives to much problems and actually this orphan page-stuation in the SERPS is a reason strong enough to use other techniques.
1. Use CSS
2. Use php-scripts for navigations (if you don't like the browser compability-problems with CSS)
3. Use SSI (but be aware of security aspects)
Yes, frames thinks.
It's not just puritanism, it's SEO-facts. Let's build an anti-frame league.
1. Use CSS
2. Use php-scripts for navigations (if you don't like the browser compability-problems with CSS)
3. Use SSI (but be aware of security aspects)
Yes, frames thinks.
It's not just puritanism, it's SEO-facts. Let's build an anti-frame league.
#14
nedguy
-
- Active Members
-
- 240 posts
HR 4
- Location:London, UK
Posted 19 March 2004 - 04:08 AM
I have a frame-based site (historical legacy - they were still cool in 1999) and the frames will be the first thing to go when it has made enough money to allow for a makeover!
Self-referencing is clever (I can't use it because of my e-commerce structure) but it is still only a 'work-around'.
My advice is, if you are starting from a blank sheet and you have the choice, don't go near frames.
NG
Self-referencing is clever (I can't use it because of my e-commerce structure) but it is still only a 'work-around'.
My advice is, if you are starting from a blank sheet and you have the choice, don't go near frames.
NG
#15
Alan Perkins
-
- Admin
-
- 1,570 posts
Token male admin
- Location:UK
Posted 19 March 2004 - 04:25 AM
I'm not sure what you mean about the bookmarks.Visitors can bookmark internal page *IF* they know how.
Not to mention that maybe 8 to 10 percent of the people who find you in a search engine will have JavaScript disabled, defeating the self-referencing code, and never see the navigation?
Regarding JavaScript, self-referencing framesets without JavaScript DO contain navigation and other framed components. They are included in a NOSCRIPT tag in the content frame. Of course, then it isn't a frameset ... visitors with JavaScript support get a frameset, visitors without it get an equivalent frameless page.
I hate frames as much as anybody else, BTW. I only wrote the self-referencing code as a test of an idea.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
