I've been using FP for nearly three years. However this requires some clarification.
Many html purists will tell you that FP is bad.
The method in which I use it not exclusively FP ( I don't "PUBLISH" nor do I use any of the FP BOT options.
Instead FP is used primarily with design templates that I have created and tailored for my own sites.
On occasion I might CONSIDER one of the standard FP templates.
HOWEVER . . .
The use of FP does not relieve you of some understanding of html.
Spider friendly is an html issue and that is NOT done within FP. Although it is not out of the question.
Spider friendly is content, content and more content.
Good Titles and Title descriptions which are reflective of the content of the pages. EACH and EVERY page individually.
My main site just over 300 pages. Each page has it own meta tags. This was not done within FP.
Frames are NOT spider friendly. However you can use frames and make them spider friendly if you design duplicate pages soley with spiders in mind.
Flash and that other stuff is not spider friendly.
The pre-testing of my pages (especially with new implentations) is verified by mutilpe browsers from within subscribers of two mail lists that I have. The mail lists and the websites are about the same subject. They two work together.
Webtv, AOL, MAC, MS and even a few other user types can be found within my subscribers. Even some Windows 3.xx users.
Pages are designed to be viewed by all in 640 x 480. This is hardly reflective of the times.
Use most any search engine for either;
Standardbred Breeding Farms
harness breeding farms
and you will find my pages 1 and 2 and in some instances the first top FIVE.
Some of my pages six and seven folders deep in my directory structure are indexed because of their exclusive content.
All of these are FP pages :-)
Or at least Ĺ FP and Ĺ html purist.
NONE are validated. And yet they are adequate when I ask the aformentioned group for test views.
Hope this helps.