Macguru
msg:617061 | 12:31 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Hi Kapow, I optimised many sites using frames. I must confess, I like to do that! ;)
I cannot tell if your pages are going to be penalised, but I swear you can get good results.
Generally I optimise my clients sites. I do not built them. The results are much better
3 months after the job but the whole site have been optimised. So I can't tell of any penality factor. I recommend to use external script on your main pages and to feed well the <NOFRAMES> erea of the framesets.
Ideally, I build 1 frameset per main page. One funny thing, many of my sites score better with framesets than with main pages. More details in this tread [webmasterworld.com]
|
Black Knight
msg:617062 | 2:16 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
I applied a dynamic frameset redirect on a site that was already listed in Google around 9 months back, and each page dropped from the index within 2 weeks. Deciding that Google had finally trained its bot to understand javascript redirection I made the javascript into an external .JS script instead of embedding the code in the pages and within two weeks the pages were again listed well in the database. No other changes were made in this time. Draw your own conclusions.
|
Macguru
msg:617063 | 2:46 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Black_Knight, Your were lucky to get any changes in two weeks on Google. It takes Google up to 3 months to index any changes.
|
Black Knight
msg:617064 | 2:50 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
The site was well indexed for a long time previously and updated regularly with fresh content. Googlebot seemed to be visiting fairly frequently.
|
rcjordan
msg:617065 | 2:51 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
>It takes Google up to 3 months to index any changes. Not my experience. 2-3 weeks is do-able if you hit it just right. <added>
>well indexed for a long time previously Same here.
|
Macguru
msg:617066 | 2:53 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Weeew! 6 weeks was my best score. Still have much to learn...
|
kapow
msg:617067 | 3:17 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Thanks everyone
I havn't done an external .JS script before, could someone say what code is used in the html file and in the .js file? e.g: - does the .js file have open and close <script> tags?
- Can I put html code into the .js file?
- What code is used to call the .js file? When do you suppose Google will learn to penalize an external redirect .js?
|
Black Knight
msg:617068 | 3:30 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
The script tag supports a SRC attribute where you put the URL for the external .JS file . The .JS file itself is pure text (Notepad or similar is fine, just save as .js instead of .txt). The JS file includes your javascript without the Script tag, and without the opening <!-- and closing //--> tags, since only javascript enabled browsers (or spiders) will ever grab the file. The beauty is that no spider should grab a .js file at all, so monitor your logs and if a spider grabs any .JS file then it may well be starting to get smart to reading it.
|
Macguru
msg:617069 | 3:32 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Hi Kapow, <<- does the .js file have open and close <script> tags?>> No, those should be removed. <<- Can I put html code into the .js file?>> Yes, but this can cause headaches sometimes. <<- What code is used to call the .js file?>> <script language="JavaScript" src="../js/css.js"></script> I recommend putting it in a robots.txt protected folder. I call it css.js so it looks like a sheep. <<When do you suppose Google will learn to penalize an external redirect .js?>> As late as possible! If robots and humans can't go in the folder where you keep thoses scripts everything should be fine! :)
|
tedster
msg:617070 | 7:36 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
On another thread [webmasterworld.com] we had a discussion about the best way to link to an external javascript file. This is the code that covers all the bases: <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="file.js"></script> The type attribute is required for the code to validate, and the language attribute is needed for older browsers. Also, I assume that when and if SEs start dealing with external js redirects, they would have the brains NOT to penalize the kind of redirect kapow is talking about. There's no search engine persuasion going on, it's a conditional redirect that HELPS the user, and it still returns the content that the SE indexed.
|
Macguru
msg:617071 | 8:47 pm on Jun 26, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Thanks tedster! I stand corrected. Now I got work on my hands...
|
kapow
msg:617072 | 9:01 am on Jun 27, 2001 (gmt 0) |
Thanks for the excellent guidence!
I can see that this method is open to abuse. I wonder if the SEs will be able to distinguish between correct and deceptive use of the code or if they will generally penalize such code.
|
Black Knight
msg:617073 | 2:44 pm on Jun 27, 2001 (gmt 0) |
My guess would be that google would treat it like all other forms of redirection they detect - that means they would index the page redirected to, instead of the one containing the redirecting code. That makes simple sense in that that way, people hiding irrelevant content behind an optimised doorway don't get a benefit, but a frameset loading script will still get the frameset page indexed properly. It is not a perfect solution, but it is the path of least damage.
|
|
