Browser Detection, any SEO issues Options

[Denyse]

I am using CSSs more and more - however with older browsers some times the CSSs don't work properly - as a solution I was thinking of using a browser detection to redirect them to a simpler page. (I have a printer as customers, and they don't seem to be big on updating their older MAC browsers)

I considered that the SEs might not like the page duplications but thought that I would handle that with a robot.txt file.

Would that work? and are there other SEO issue I should be aware of?

Or should I simply redirect them to a page that tells them to get with the times... (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

[qwerty]

I know that some people use numerous style sheets (rather than numerous pages), then use a browser detection script to determine which one to use. Once that's determined, they do a document.write for the line that calls the proper CSS.

If you do something like that, make sure you've got a default CSS (a fairly simple one) in case the browser isn't found. I'm not sure what would happen if the user-agent didn't have javascript running, though...

[Denyse]

I'm thinking that it only encourages them to be lazy about upgrading their browsers (after all browser upgrades are free)

I'm seeing a nice page with a cute little dinosaure on it or something and links to free browser upgrade pages... (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/naughty.gif)

[Googlewhacked]

Denyse,

You might want to be careful how you set up the browser detection & redirect, since client-side redirects (JavaScript) can smell a little spammy to the engines.

As querty said, I would make sure that there is a default CSS that is used in case the browser sniffer "fails" (i.e. - there is no browser being used). You could even test it with the W3C's Amaya browser...

- Phil

[robwatts]

I think the bottom line is that provided your page content is by and large very similar to what the spider sees then you should not get penlaised by any SE.

Note, I said *should not* the reason being that a poorly thought out 'spam checker' could in theory identify some subtle change and penalise you for it, but this would be most unlikely.

To assuage any potential hand inspection it might even pay to have a little footer text saying something like "This webpage has been optimised for browsertype "

So long as the content viewed in say IE5 is textually the same as that delivered for Opera or Netscape, or Mozilla etc then from the perspective of a SE bot you should not be doing anything 'wrong'.

Personally, I'd use a server side solution and loop through the various user-agents

You could for example sake have a little loop at the top of your scripts which checked for browser type and delivered an include based upon whatever agent it was.

CODE

$userAgent = $HTTP_USER_AGENT;
if(ereg("Opera", $userAgent)){
include(opera.css);
}
if(ereg("MSIE", $userAgent)){
include(ie5.css);
}

etc etc

Although, this might also be of help too.

http://www.phpfreaks.com/phpmanual/page/fu...et-browser.html

Just some thoughts, good luck in any case. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[csjavi]

Browsers can change their id string. New browsers and new versions of existing browsers are published all the time. The browser check would have to be very clever and you would have to update it continuously.

An easier solution would be to create a very basic default stylesheet that the older browsers can handle. Then import another, more advanced style sheet. The newer browsers will read the imported style sheet and use it instead of and with the basic style sheet. The older browsers will disregard the imported style sheet.

The good part is the cascading. You don't have to redefine the elements in the imported style sheet, if they haven't changed from the basic style sheet. You only have define the elements that are different from or haven't been defined at all in the basic style sheet.

At least, that's how I have understood it. I have never used it myself. Time to (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/zz.gif)

[burgeltz]

I agree with that 100%. I've yet to find a browser detection script that wasn't a pain in the a**. If anyone knows of one that does a decent job detecting browser versions, please, please let me know!

[Scottie]

I'm seeing a nice page with a cute little dinosaure on it or something and links to free browser upgrade pages... (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/naughty.gif)

All those mobile phone and pocket pc surfers will cerainly be confused... (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Denyse]

OK Scottie, you have a point - I had not thought of them... CSJavi has an interesting idea, certainly worth investigating and by far the easiest.

[Jbrookins]

I've just started designing in full css layout myself, so I feel your pain.

Creating a default css-lite file and then calling in the new stuff using @import "styles/blah.css"; will avoid NN4 problems.

The problem with browser detection is that a percentage of your visitors may have javascript turned OFF than they will be using NN4 and the like. I've heard claims of roughly 13% of users surf with js off, which is 3-4x that of visitors with older browsers (for us anyway). Breaking your site for 13% to gain 4-6% of your visitors just doesn't make sense.

[qwerty]

I've heard claims of roughly 13% of users surf with js off

That seems like an awfully high percentage. I don't suppose you have any documentation on that, do you? I know, you've just heard claims, so it's probably not in some authoritative report, but I have to wonder where numbers like that would come from, since I doubt most people even know how to turn off JS.

[Jbrookins]

That seems like an awfully high percentage. I don't suppose you have any documentation on that, do you? I know, you've just heard claims, so it's probably not in some authoritative report, but I have to wonder where numbers like that would come from, since I doubt most people even know how to turn off JS.

Yes, that's the issue. It came from a reliable source who cited W3C as the origin. (personal convo, no paper trail) However, I've not been able to actually find the study myself. I said I'd heard claims but I probably should have made sure I said I was a bit clearer about not having seen the documentation myself...

Could be an interesting study though. hmmm......

[Randy]

The problem is that I don't think there is one answer to the question. There are too many variables out there to take into account. What market segment your visitors come from, how savvy they are, etc, etc.

As a for instance, when I look at my stats the B2C sites tend to have less than 3% with Javascript fully disabled. My B2B sites tend to have a higher percentage with JS disabled. Most in the 7-10% range, with one "techie" type of site having 15% javascript turned off.

On the flip side of that coin, if you're marketing totally to AOL users, or those who are typically less Internet savvy, I would expect the the ratio with JS disabled would be about as close to nil as you can get.

[domokun]

id just like to lend my voice to that of jani. one of the advantages of style sheets is that degrade gracefully, so a basic style (that practically all browsers can follow) and an imported style that only the more advanced browsers can use) would be best

[Alan Perkins]

You have to be very careful when using browser detection technologies, for two reasons:

1) Misinterpretation (or correct interpretation!) as search engine spamming by search engines
2) Missed marketing opportunities

Make sure that search engines see the content that MOST of their searchers see, and you should not have a problem with misinterpretation as spam. (Note that's "should not", not "definitely will not"). In practical terms, this means that you'd normally show search engines the same thing that you show users with IE6 on Win2K.

The chance for missed marketing opportunities arises whenever you have variable content programmatically delivered from a single URL according to features of the client (e.g. browser). When not all visitors see the same content, it makes it more difficult for your visitors to communicate with each other concerning that content. This means, for example, that you might miss being mentioned in newsletters and articles. Try to make sure the same content remains consistent, even if the formatting doesn't.