Forum Moderators: phranque
The situation is that I have a related company who has outsourced web design to company who's idea of a web site is frames and a flash animation and no text on the home page (luckily it's not a separate splash page)...and of course no <noframes> tag in sight...The whole site has probably 20 pages altogether. It's one of those static catalog/brochure sites, no e-commerce, just product descriptions, real simple.
I'm trying to get some unified SEO going among this group of companies, and since this site is new I made some suggestions. My first suggestion was to lose the frames. I gave them all the standard Jakob Nielsen Why Frames Suck [useit.com] arguments, but to no avail. Here's what this "web design" firm came back with:
“The rule of thumb is this: If the website is extremely high-traffic (i.e. millions of visitors a month), avoid the use of frames to keep the website compatible with the lowest common browser client. Like many of our fellow designers, Really Bad Websites, Inc. strongly promotes the use of frames to provide a stationary left-hand side menu, keeping navigation simple and intuitive.”So, now the local company thinks "we do not have “millions” of visitors a month, we do not have to worry about creating a site to be compatible with the lowest common browser client." keep me away from the sharp pointy sticks :(
Then I had gall to infer that the pretty Flash only home page might be the [url=www.webmasterworld.com/forum27/44.htm]"kiss of death"[/url] for Search Engines (since there is no text, or <noframes> tag). This got them riled a bit...
“Search engines provide a minimal amount of traffic to websites; most Websites receive less than ten percent of their visitors via search engines. One of the final stages of website development involves providing an updated robots.txt file, detailed metatags and "noframes" tags to facilitate search engine indexing. Please keep in mind that each search engine indexes websites in a completely different manner; many ignore meta tags altogether.:o At this point I'm really, really glad I live in a country with strict gun control laws :( Now the local company has this figure stuck in their heads, "less than 10% of Web site visitors are a result of search engines". Along these lines the local company is telling me that they should be driving their own sales objectives and promoting strategies that inform new (as well as existing) customers of their website and not relying on whether or not ALL visitors go to their site as a result of a search engines.I'm not clear at all as to why a small Flash animation is the "kiss of death" to a search engine. Technically, a spider program will ignore all embedded elements, including graphics and flash, focusing on HTML text only.
It's a common mistake to assume that search engines are important in driving qualified traffic to a website; offline (traditional) marketing is by far the most powerful mechanism to drive in qualified traffic.”
I tried to sit down and write a rebuttal to this inanity, but I kept typing in ALL CAPS and using profanity. Advice, suggestions, commiseration...all welcome.
Hmmm, well I guess they ought to amend that slightly for honesty:
"Search engines provide a minimal amount of traffic to OUR BADLY DESIGNED websites; most receive less than ten percent of their visitors via search engines because we are too dim to understand that search engine spiders have roughly the equivalent HTML rendering capability as a version 2 browser (a spider can be thought of as roughly equal to IE2 in terms of what it understands). Meanwhile, Neilsen and Forrester have both recently made public reports stating that all better designed sites (companies who go with REAL web designers) receive upto 85% of their traffic from search engines. Forrester Research's latest reports clearly stated that 85% of all surfers find new sites via the search engines. Unfortunately, none of the clients of this web design firm will be among the sites found."
I have clients who come to me by referral and I've seen some sites that use every method of blocking indexing spiders, frames being one of them and Flash being another.
I just recently (this past weekend) launched a redesign on a clients site that has been in frames since 1996 (goldcoastinc.com). Because I fully didn't understand the concept of frames or how to work with them back then, I could only do minimal optimization for the client. The database element of the site was the deciding factor for frames.
Sites that use strictly Flash do not get indexed, period! Sites that combine flash elements with static html and are optimized properly will rank well in the spider based se's.
I find frames useful when working with sites that have a lot of products. I typically have thumbnails that load in a left frame and when clicked bring up an enlargement in the main frame with the product information.
Now, those main frame pages can also function on their own. Why? Because I take the extra steps required to make sure that the links from that page will lead them back into a frameset.
The home page and main category pages are not in frames. These are the sections that I concentrate on when optimizing. I put all the brochureware pages into static non-framed pages and then links from those lead into framesets for that particular product category.
I do have client framesets that are holding page one positions in Google and AV along with a few others. And for some very competitive keywords. Yes, it surprised me too but when you structure the site properly, optimize every available area, and your navigation is well planned, it can work.
My advice to you would be to let them do their thing, launch the site, do what you can without stressing yourself out and then show them the proof. Give it about three months and then you can start answering the questions.
1. Why aren't we positioned well in this SE?
2. Why don't we show up at all in this SE?
3. Why do we have so many single entrance requests on the home page?
4. Why is there no traffic from the SE's?
5. Why, why, why, why, why?
Then you can shine, bust them out of frames and show them results usually within 30 days! There are just some people who do not fully understand the concept of spider based SE's. They need to learn through error.
You'll be able to use that ole' "I told you so" phrase after all is said and done with. It amazes me that some web design firms just don't get it.
It's just that more efforts are required to get a better product. There is no problem that cannot be solved for using frames. The benefits of having a clean page without all eye candy code is really paying off.
I posted 3 little tricks up there in this tread, and it works.
From: [digitrends.net...]
An interesting pro-SEO article on why companies should pay more attention to SEO
Just the facts, ma’am: More than 80 percent of Web users find the sites they’re looking for by using a search engine, according to both Forrester Research and Georgia Tech’s GVU Center User Surveys. Every single day, 57 percent of Web users search the Internet, making search the second most popular Internet activity after e-mail (according to Statistical Research, Inc.). Clearly, the old "fish where the fish are" analogy holds true here.
...
'they are 'partially correct',
10% of traffic comes from search engines ON SITES THEY DESIGN. This is due to inexperience/incompetence which will damage your business - you cannot afford to trust these people'
You have enough stats to prove the point from previous posts - go for the jugular!
I hate companies that cheat customers - that is what they are doing - no question about it, they deserve all the vitriol you can spit at them - pass me a pointy stick please...
Really Bad Websires, Inc. is guilty of making semi-accurate one-size-fits-all statements that are designed to support and help sell the particular types of services they offer. Not a whole lot different then what many SEO firms do when it comes to preaching the value of SEO. The only difference is that we tend to regurgitate and spin a different set of stats. (The most common one being the now ancient GVU study).
The truth is that whether or not a company should take SEO into consideration when chosing design elements completely depends on
A)the potential traffic SEO can produce, and
B)the total cost of optimization
On many occasions, I've seen companies who've dumped thousands of dollars into re-designing their site so that it is "SEO friendly." They spent the money because an SEO company gave them the "80% of all web users...." pitch. What they didn't tell them was that none of those web surfers happen to be searching for information on THEIR products. In the end, the amount of new traffic wasn't noticable, and many times their conversion rates dropped. (Often times the evil design elements that inhibit SEO, actually help stimulate human action).
On the other side of the coin, I've obviously seen plenty of examples where design choices were costing a company several thousand potential visitors.
With Bill's particular client, I have know idea which one they are, but I think everyone needs to consider the fact that there are many types of sites that are "barking up the wrong tree" when it comes to dumping money into SEO.
If I were Bill, I'd start by preparing some research on the potential search activity that exists for the client's keywords. If for example, after spending some time with some of the various keyword research tools that exist, you can come back to the client and show them that 10,000 people a day are searching for terms that directly relate to their product or services, then you will have a much better shot at getting them to listen.
Once they're listening, I'd follow up with the fact that the 10% figure that RBW, inc. is using is an AVERAGE. That means that some sites get no SE traffic while others get almost all of their traffic from search engines. Since each site is completely unique, a stat derived from averaging SE traffic from thousands of different sites containing content on thosands of different topics is completely worthless.
If you sell SEO services, and you convince someone who teaches creative underwater basket weaving classes to dump substantial money into SEO, you've committed the same type of crime as a company like Really Bad Websites, inc. telling a Data Recovery company that they don't need to worry about search engines.
Each situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on an individual basis.
Yes, of course. It's up to you to get people to return. If your site doen't s_ck they will.
That is the way for a real personalised service. A service aimed at results.
Very good point.
Here is wht you need to do: 1.) Show the client some server logs from similar sites. 2.) Ask the client to show you their server logs. 3.) You need to ask the client specifically what they do when they use the web. "Do you type addresses in the address bar or do you search?" If they say "both", ask them what behaviour they use most often ie; typing in the address or searching on an engine. If they don't get it by then, maybe you should not waste your time.
I suspect that you are not dealing with a "pure" web design firm, but more of a hybrid that designs print and other media. That is why they are averse to SEO, they are also pitching peripheral marketing, it is to their advantage to use poor SEO in order to secure more work on mass mailings, etc.
I wish you the best.
Whenever there is a mystery, just look for the money.
OR flash pages. Terribly frusterating to the end user.
-G
People are starting to wake up to the fact that the Web's greatest potential (at least until the publishing /information industry hijacks it) is in targeting specific groups, not portalling or "braodcasting" to big amorphous groups. Those who learn that first will benefit the most.
It is really once that is accepted that SEO really comes into its own. Its all about very intelligent targeting.. with content, keywords, promotion, usability, branding.. the whole kaboodle.
One point that might be worth making is the inability of most Web designers to properly built framed sites so every pages can be easely bookmarked, flash or wathever what.
Simple: One frameset per main page.
Also offers alternate content in noframes erea.
Framesets look soo sexy on top of the podium.
*puzzled*
But end user still have the advantage of knowing exactly where he is, and where then he can go, at all times, by not having to scroll all the way to the top to reach back again navigation devices. On older boxes this can be a real benefit.
Also, from a spider point a view, all main pages are clean from all eye candy code and other gyzmos. The best spider food stands right on top of every pages.
The noframes and the frame name area can be filled with all the 'invisible' goodies you can dream of.
It doubles the site page count, making it seamlessly "richer" in content.
It is worth the effort to fine tune a framed site, if the client can afford it.
That is still better than the numerous framesets I saw without noframe content. Some even without the tag filled with something like "please get a new browser, they are free". Bill is stuck with such "Web design" company. I though it could help him, and others, for this detail of the whole problem.
The only delays I got with ODP, was when there were currently no editors in the right category. May be they liked what they saw with Lynx and considered it was good enough to pass the test? ;)
I can't tell you how many times I've read and reread each of your responses. Over the last couple of days I referred repeatedly to this thread and others in WebmasterWorld as I crafted my response letter. I must say that when I started this thread I was really of the mindset that frames = evil. It was a simple equation that had been drilled into me since I first heard of website design. Particularly in the world of SEO, frames are generally not very well liked. I'm still not crazy about them. However, I'm really glad some other voices piped up. You allowed me to respond to Really Bad Websites, Inc. in a more even handed manner.
In my response, I reiterated my dislike of frames. I mentioned a lot of the points you guys brought up here. They are not intuitive, you can't bookmark them, and a little bit more of Mr. Nielsen. However, my summary of this point was if you're going to insist on frames, do them right. I emphasized the design points Macguru brought up in order to keep the navigation intuitive, one frameset for each main page and a "well fed" <noframes> area.
The fun part of my response to Really Bad Websites, Inc. was the search engine quote
Search engines provide a minimal amount of traffic to websites; most Websites receive less than ten percent of their visitors via search engines.and the offline marketing use instead of SE focus. I basically took all the ammo you guys gave me on this and let 'em have it. They probably won't be happy.
In deference to the thoughtful comments by WebGuerrilla I must say that pushing SEO for this particular site is worth it. Several similar sites I manage or work with get in excess of 50% of their traffic from SEs. However you made a great point about evaluating whether or not SEO was justifiable.
I sent my letter off to the company that is using Really Bad Websites, Inc., and I'll keep you posted on how thing go.
And best of luck to you, Bill, with your client.
I just wanted to add what I believe might be a slightly different perspective.
First - frames should never never never be a first SEO resort for all the reasons mentioned above. I understand all of that. And I've heard all the horror stories about frames. "Don't use them. They're bad for you. You'll grow hair." etc.. etc.. etc..
But frames need not be the kiss of death from a SEO perspective. They just mean ya have to work a little harder.
The NoFrames tag can be an excellent place to optimize a page. Also, with some savy javascript coding most of the other complaints about frames can be overcome.
You can enable a user to bookmark a specific frame while it is being viewed in the frameset. And with some javascript you can code your page so that if the page is called outside the frameset - it will load the called page in the frameset - not just the frameset itself.
....hope I said that correctly.
I just wanted to throw that in because I know many times SEO is the last thing a company thinks about when they are building a web site, and after they have invested a lot of money in their framed web site - they are likely be unresponsive when the SEO Guru comes along at the end of their project and tells them the answer is to tear everything down and start over again. More than likely, the money just isn't in the budget for something like that.
So, I believe our responsibility as SEO's is to advise the client about the problems frames present and let them make the decision. And at a minimum, this gives you some security should the rankings not come out as you hoped.
After that, it's a matter of the SEO to 'make' the frames work for the engines. And heck, if it's in a frameset - you can even charge more for the expertise of how to do it.
Anyway - that's IMHO. :)
Keep rockin, Gang. Great thread!
How did it go?
I was really looking forward to returning here with a triumphant victory in hand, but it looks like the dark side has remained in control of this particular tale.
I haven't given up yet!
