128 replies to this topic

[razzle]

Hi all

I have a client that has a site that is all flash. After much fighting they have agreed to add a number of static html pages to the site for those that cannot view flash and of course for the search engines. These pages are all linked to from the home page.

However they are refusing to add visible textual content to the home page even though I tell them it is the most important page to have it on!! Instead the designer has said he is going to create a hidden layer that we can optimise that will sit under the flash. He reckons that he has checked it out and it isn't spam, but I said if it has been created solely for the search engines and not for the visitors to the site then it will cause problems and is not an ethical promotion method.

However what if he programs it so that layer is delivered to those who cannot view flash? Does this now give it a purpose for users and thus make it a viable promotion method?

Thanks in advance!!

Razzle

[Mel]

If the layer is hidden from the search engines, they can get pretty upset about it as has been proven in the past. There is an alternative route and that is to set your all graphics page up so that mousing over certain portions of it will make a layer correponding to the size and location of the graphic visible to the viewer and when you mouseout the grapic will appear. I have used this method on sites wiith similar designs and they seem to rank just fine.

[dimok]

Layers made with <DIV> tags are always visible to SEs. I think there is no problem with that.

[air-dog]

Hello all,

dimok, are you totaly 100% on this? I've read SEOs say many times that Search Engines can detect invisible DIVs/Layers and thus ignore them as spam.

I can see your point in one way, spiders would have to go to extraordinary lengths to check for hidden layers and divs.

But then again I could write spider that could check for this in some way and I could easily imagine that the programmers for SEs are 100 steps ahead of me in the programming arena.

[Jill]

If the content is different than the content in the Flash, it is probably considered spam by most search engines.

Probably won't get caught, however, and if it's highly relevant to your site, the engines may not care even if they do catch it. Hard to say. If you simply put keywords in it, and nothing for an actual user, you'd be more apt to be penalized if caught.

Jill

[Mel]

HI Dimok;
Whoops --You are correct that layers with div tags are visible to search engines, but not always to users and that is where problems can start and what I should have said.

[compar]

Boy this seems like a confused thread. Probably just me who is confused.

Lets start with the original question or problem. As I understand it Razzle has a client who won't give up their home page flash. She wants to find a method of having the SE spiders see text content even though in this case the human viewer will not be able to see it, with the possible exception of those without the Flash plugin.

So she wants the SEs to see the text. Several on this thread have answered as if she wants to hide the text from the SEs. If she wants to do that why add it? Just stay with the flash.

Razzle you also used that forbidden word "ethical" I think on this forum we have decide a method is compliant or non compliant.

I further agree with Jill. In all likelyhood if the text that the SEs see is not spammy, but really describes the site and helps define its relevance the SE will probably just index it and move on.

Edited by compar, 18 September 2003 - 11:49 PM.

[fred]

You could use the

<noembed>

tag to insert content describing your flash to be displayed in browser not supporting flash


<embed flash info here> </embed><noembed>html content describing your flash page</noembed>

[razzle]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

I think I will try the layer option but of course only put in there what I would want the visitor to read - Nice optimised and relevant text.

I shall remember never to use that eth**al word again either!!

[Scottie]

Just remember- it is a workaround, not the best solution. And it could come back to bite you later, causing more rework.

Make sure the marketing dept knows it is sacrificing the effectiveness of your SEO efforts and possibly losing visitors because of their refusal to have a "real" home page. For many, that trade-off is still worth it but a lot of people don't think about it in those terms. It is a choice you make.

[Alan Perkins]

The Flash question is more a question of accessibility. What do clients who can't read Flash see? Make good provision for those clients, and you're making provision for search engines - without even knowing they exist. I would not recommend the layer approach. Instead, detect the presence of the required Flash player and vary the content accordingly. One way to do this is to put a small Flash movie on the page that redirects to another page containing the real Flash movie. Another way is to use JavaScript to detect the Flash. Another way is to make use of the NOEMBED tag. There are lots of ways.

Razzle you also used that forbidden word "ethical"    I think on this forum we have decide a method is compliant or non compliant.

Personally, I prefer "ethical". I think "compliant" places too much emphasis on the role of the search engine. It isn't for a search engine to make rules about how you code your HTML. A search engine should not influence your HTML coding one way or another, i.e. neither towards "deception" nor towards "compliance". You should be able to write your HTML without even knowing that search engines exist.

[compar]

Personally, I prefer "ethical".  I think "compliant" places too much emphasis on the role of the search engine.  It isn't for a search engine to make rules about how you code your HTML.  A search engine should not influence your HTML coding one way or another, i.e. neither towards "deception" nor towards "compliance".  You should be able to write your HTML without even knowing that search engines exist.

We are going to quickly change the topic of this thread. But I don't think 'ethical' or "compliant" have anything to do with the SEs "telling you how to code your html".

The SE are certainly within their right to issue a TOS. All they are saying is if you want us to index you we suggest that you follow these guideline. Now when people use the word "ethical" in regards to these guideline it suggests that these gudeline have some moral force. This of course is not true.

It is like a restaurant saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service". They aren't telling you how to dress. And if you try to enter barefoot no one would ever suggest that you were being unethical. But you would not be in compliance.

So if you are concerned about being in a SE it may be wise to comply with their TOS. If you do not follow their TOS then you are not complying. This may even happens out of ignorance rather than by intent. How could you ever be "unethical" without knowing about it.

[deborah2002]

Bob, I always thought the "ethical" issue was about the clients. I mean, is it "ethical" for us as SEO's to optimize thier site with "non-compliant" strategies, just cause we know the loopholes and they don't?

When someone hires us for a job, they want us to do things the right way. If we lead them to believe that we are, yet doing it in a "non-compliant" way, that, to me, is "unethical".

Your right, Bob, here we go again!

deb

[Alan Perkins]

The SE are certainly within their right to issue a TOS. All they are saying is if you want us to index you we suggest that you follow these guideline.

You are confusing the TOS with the Webmaster guidelines. The TOS is for people who actually use the search engine - its customers.

The Webmaster guidelines are for people whose sites may be indexed. It is "compliance" with these guidelines that is in question. I'm suggesting it is possible - and very common - to comply with those guidelines without knowing search engines exist and how they work. It's only when you gain some knowledge that search engines exist, and how they work, that you might need some guidelines to help you avoid deceiving a search engine without intending to.

Now when people use the word "ethical" in regards to these guideline it suggests that these gudeline have some moral force. This of course is not true. 

Don't confuse ethics and morals - they are different.

I was not using "ethical" in regards to the guidelines. I was using it independently of the guidelines.

Ethical SEO is based on a decision-making framework that produces the best net outcome for searchers, search engines and site owners, respecting the rights and roles of each of those parties.

[Jill]

I think on this forum we have decide a method is compliant or non compliant.

No we haven't.

I shall remember never to use that eth**al word again either!!

Please feel free to use the word "ethical" whenever you'd like. Nothing wrong with people who prefer to do things in an ethical manner, and never will be!



Jill