| 10:06 am on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I use number 4. It seems to work reliably and still allows use of the back button. I've never noticed any SEO issues with the code even in image search.
| 10:43 am on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Im using yet another one for every site I manage:
if (window!= top) top.location.href = location.href;
65% Google traffic in the referrals. Lots of image search results as well.
| 12:22 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>I'd assume Google does NOT discourage frame busters
remember even when in someone else's frameset your own page still has its original unique url
| 10:59 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
How about reporting the adsense violation of TOS via DMCA report? Adsense is cracking down on scraping publishers. See this thread:
| 11:19 pm on Jan 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
topr8, my sentence reads as follows...
|I'd assume Google does NOT discourage frame busters, (...), googlebot might not even run that script (...) |
My concern here was mainly about a manual check. As in, would the site be seen as doing something unethical by adding a frame popper script ( since this WOULD make it escape Image Search for example. There are no images though ).
The other point is that I recently catched a few threads here and there about Googlebot starting to not only crawl but even decipher CSS and JS. Although I think it's pretty much scare tactics, plus a few bloggers trying to drive themseves visitors, can't say I feel it's gonna stay that way.
Trinorthlighting, well, yes. Might just happen. Although I'm the kind who likes to deal with such cases in a way that involves the least amount of human contact ( and thus error ). In the old days I would have contacted the sites on which I noticed this. Now I don't even care about anything else than bleaching my sites pure bright white before there's any kind of trouble.
( Yes, I know how a frameset works. How it works, theoretically. Today Google requested the obligatory "http://www.mysite.com/http://www.myothersite.com/" page from one of our servers for the first time, thus I popped up another can of soda and celebrated my arrival to the club. When it comes to Google indexing, I'm not at all confident theories always perform as promised. )
| 12:09 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
DMCA complaints are quick and easy. Basically you type up a letter and drop it in the mail. Google does take action against people who scrape. A lot of people think google does not care, but that is not the truth. If its an adsense scraper that is violating copywrite laws google can be sued as well as the publisher because original content is covered by copywrite laws. Remember, google is profiting off those pages as well.
A recent court case is forcing google to crack down on the adsense sites that are scraping.
Trust me, the more they are reported the more of them will be put out of business.
| 12:48 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
thanks again trinorth,
would it be any help to fill out a "Counter Notification" if a website is (completely) removed from the index without any good reason?
| 2:00 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If you have been removed from the index, log into your webmaster tools and file a reinclusion request. Make sure your with in googles guideliines.
| 2:10 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>would it be any help to fill out a "Counter Notification" if a website is (completely) removed from the index without any good reason?
Without any good reason isn't the same as filing a counter notification when a site's been removed because a DMCA complaint has been filed.
| 7:15 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Putting your site in a frame is rude, but it is easily circumvented as described in post 1. Just put the snippet on your pages and sleep peacefully.
Note that it is not hijacking. It will not affect your Google rankings (unless the framing site is so popular that it usurps some of your inbound links). It will not get you kicked out of AdSense. It is not appropriate to file a DMCA complaint; save that for the many cases where real theft has taken place.
Even Google frames your site sometimes, e.g. with the image search, or when translating a web page. They are well aware what framing is and will not get confused if they see your site in someone else's frame.
| 9:46 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've introduced a frame buster last Thursday, saw a 30 per cent unique hits increase and today --bang!-- got a three times decrease in traffic from Google Images.
Maybe, that's just a coincedence, but I guess Google doesn't really like frame busters.
The code looked as follows:
if(top!= self) top.location.href = self.location.href
| 11:53 am on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
nektotigra, if it's not too much to ask, could you please keep us posted on this, and confirm that it wasn't just a temporary glitch?
This was one of the concerns I have.
Exactly because even Google uses frames sometimes, they may see a frame buster as an attempt to manipulate certain services of theirs ( converting Image Search and translation into broader site visits ).
Please see if your site is still included in Google / Google Image Search ( you can use the site: operator in Image Search as well ).
And if there has been a change since you added the frame popping script, be sure to let us know, that was one of the big questions.
Other than that, thanks trinorthlighting and everyone for the posts, they flesh out the topic to great extent.
And yes, unless there are ads outsite the frame from a different publisher ( perhaps with the title, meta adjusted to provide a similar context ), I don't see a case that the AdSense team would react on.
Thus I'll go and check.
| 12:13 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Please see if your site is still included in Google / Google Image Search ( you can use the site: operator in Image Search as well ). |
Yes, it's still there. It is completely included in Google Search and at least partially present in Google Image Searches.
I never used to check results in Google.Images before, so I can't tell anything about whether the number of indexed images has changed, but I got about 65-70 per cent of my images indexed.
| 12:30 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well, keep an eye out, although having ( some / any ) images in the index, means you haven't been removed from it, which is a relief.
| 2:59 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Not exactly a SEO issue, but a frame buster will break the site overlay feature in Google Analytics. You would have to turn off the script for Analytics to load the webpage and turn it back on when finished. Just something to consider if you use the overlay feature.
| 5:19 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
BTW, you can modify the snippet to act based on the framing site's URL.
For example I add this IF statement before breaking out of the frame, otherwise users would be unable to do a web translation of my site:
|if (location.href.toLowerCase().indexOf("whatever.com") == 0) |
You could add something similar to allow Google images to frame your site, if you're comfortable with that use.
| 6:42 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've been thinking about this a lot lately to. One of my sites gets a lot of traffic from image search, so what I'd like is a frame buster that pops out of frames unless from image searches or translation (like the example above), but on those adds target="_top" to links if it leaves the frame intact.
That way image searchers aren't suddenly confused by an unexpected event (frame removal and loss of the "back to image search" link) but if they click further, my site is out of frames. To me that seems like a fair compromise.
| 6:56 pm on Jan 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Exactly because even Google uses frames sometimes, they may see a frame buster as an attempt to manipulate certain services of theirs ( converting Image Search and translation into broader site visits ). |
I've been using frame busters on every site I've done for more than 10 years and have never had a problem with Google web or image search.
As for Google seeing it as an attempt to capture more visitors, well, heck, sure it is. I find G's attempt to keep more visitors using my sites' content quite rude (as was Ask when it did it for all clicked links), so I bust my pages out.
But again, I emphasize that I haven't had, nor have I heard of, any repercussions from using a frame buster.