| 6:04 pm on Jul 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
It seems that you could start the external js with document.open() -- that would clear the original document from the browser window and establish a stream to a new document for your document.write() statements. Then write your frameset code with document.write(), and then use document.close(), so the frameset gets displayed on screen.
| 7:53 pm on Jul 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Good point tedster...
I must admit....my mind is in the gutter. I'm talking about [size=6]SPAM[/size]..pure and simple.
I want to build a four or five page site that gives a good spider feast but redirects the users to an existing site.
Will this work this way or am I blinded by the pre-formed meatloaf goggles.
| 7:57 pm on Jul 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
The prepackaged meat product fumes are getting to your brain, toolman. (Never heard of using it as goggles before... interesting idea) I thought <noframes> content was becoming less relevant to ranking pretty much across the board?
| 10:14 pm on Jul 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I guess what I am trying to do, however unethical, is to cheaply cloak the url. In other words the spiders eat five pages but not the js, so the users see the redirected site because the js wrote the frameset.
| 12:42 pm on Jul 27, 2001 (gmt 0)|
| 7:39 pm on Jul 27, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Now I see -- you don't care about NOFRAMES content or the content of the 0% frame. The frameset is just to present a different domain altogether. Cheap stealth.
Yeah, I guess this will work for a while (until human observation kicks in, anyway, like ggrot said). Then the domain gets banned, and you start over, but what the hey! It's like selling your goods from the back of a van instead of renting a storefront.