Forum Moderators: open
After being on this board and in the SEO game for a few years I insisted that we treat Flash much like we were currently treating images. It's a decoration for a page, not the entire page. If you are looking for a post that says that 100% flash is the way to go, you won't find it here.
As you would expect, using flash this way didn't impact our SERPs because we simply swaped jpgs for swfs and using PHP we replace the jpgs for those without the correct flash plugin. No real big news there.
What I never expected was the number of visitors that were able to see the flash movies (we're sticking with flash 8) and what it would do to the length of their visits and the amount of repeat visits we get. Our avarage visit last year was between 10 and 15 minutes. Our average visit now lasts 30 minutes to an hour!
About 50% of our viewers have the flash 8 plugin and are able to see the movies. (Of those that don't have the plugin, about 20% of those will go download the plugin and return to our site.) They typically browse deeper into the site and stay longer. We have even had clients come in to see us and spend 15 to 20 minutes talking to us about our web site and how impressive it is.
To give you an idea of the changes that we made to our site to get these results, the old site design had a dark blue bar across the top with our logo and a grey background for the rest of the site with white text and assorted images.
The new design changed two things, we went to an all white site with black text (the layout of every page stayed virtually identical) and we swaped the homepage image with a flash movie and we added a few more flash movies to internal pages with more in the works. That's it.
For anyone who is thinking about adding flash to their sites, I hope this information was helpful.
Soon come some flash movies, tours and interactive drap and drop product calculators...
As for ranking issues due to flash, its all going to be on new pages or pages that I wouldn't want spidered anyway. If the new pages get indexed "great" if they don't, then I would act surprised and go back to figuring out what I forgot to export, add or delete there.
grey background for the rest of the site with white textwe went to an all white site with black text
I'd attribute your success to that alone.
This is a recipe for being banned, even automatically. I urge all users here to ensure that they do not ever use this technique, it is irresponsible that it has been even suggested here.
No it isn't and I resent the tone. diplay none is fine we are not fooling search engines or intending to circumvent any rules by piling in keywords simply providing all the text to be indexed. Just as an aside how the hell would a search engine know the properties of a div anyway as its held in an external css file.
FYI we have adopted this technique for a number of years and have never I repeat never to date experienced any issues whatsoever.
Be nice, its a place to exchange information not be so downright rude.
Why is it the same old entrenched opinions all the time every time flash gets mentioned!
Set the text to be called into flash externally, then load it into an invisible div so PDA users (among others) will not be disadvantaged, do the same with images, and provide links to them in the invisible text. Why oh why do we get the sam old mantras, its not flash's fault people if there are some bad designers using it.
That's because it is a debate that has no cut and dry winner. Yes, we all know there are ways of getting around the problems of Flash for portable devices. Doesn't make it a portable design. Yes we all know that flash can do cool things that can't be done with basic dhtml/css.
The point of mentioning them is for the few folks reading the thread that haven't heard the same arguments before.
diplay none is fine we are not fooling search engines or intending to circumvent any rules by piling in keywords simply providing all the text to be indexed. Just as an aside how the hell would a search engine know the properties of a div anyway as its held in an external css file.
Unless googleguy or someone with some true authority on the matter can clarify this for sure, it might be a good idea for someone to think twice about using hidden text. Even if that hidden text is appropriate.
[google.com...]
Quality Guidelines - Basic principles:
"Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"Quality Guidelines - Specific recommendations:
Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
Just my interpretation, but I don't see how hidden text helps the users. I also see that it doesn't explicitly say "Don't" use hidden text, but only "Avoid" it. I really don't know how to interpret that.
[help.yahoo.com...]
What Yahoo! Considers Unwanted
The use of text that is hidden from the user
That seems a little more straightforward.
I think what the point the person was trying to make was that using hidden text might be risky and a person should understand the risk before considering using it.
Unless googleguy or someone with some true authority on the matter can clarify this for sure, it might be a good idea for someone to think twice about using hidden text. Even if that hidden text is appropriate.
I wouldn't get too paranoid here. When it comes to CSS, the algo is defenseless. Any issues you hear about hidden text are typically those brought about by a competitor who has reported the use of hidden text in a way that is being used to deceive. There are many reasons to use hidden text from an accessibility standpoint. We need to define the term "hidden" first.
I think what the point the person was trying to make was that using hidden text might be risky and a person should understand the risk before considering using it.
The only time hidden text is going to be risky is when it is being used to deceive. Certain types of hidden text can easily be detected like same color text on same color background. But, with today's designs, that method of detecting hidden text may not work. So, it is pretty much a manual thing. I see sites with layers of hidden text that make it for a while. Then someone reports them and poof, their gone forever. You don't recover from a "hidden text" ban, sorry, it just doesn't happen.
The site deals with copyright artwork. I ran across a site for a law firm that had flash videos on all of their partner's bios, it was along the lines of something you'd see on MTV, and I stoped to see every one. That's one of the sites that pushed me to do more than just show the work as static images. My audience is the MTV generation and I'm trying to create something they can relate to.
Yes, I changed everything on the site at the same time. I replaced three images with flash videos, one on the home page and two interior. That's all that I changed besides the overall color scheme. I created the video using Final Cut and converted it to Flash because it streams better and the file size is MUCH smaller.
The thing that I am noticing is that I am getting more visits and longer visit times on those three pages. (If you're like me you track EVERYTHING) And the feedback I am getting from clients and competators is specifically refering to the flash movies. We had a client come in and specifically tell us how much they liked the flash content and that they had watched it over and over for nearly an hour.
As far as PDAs or other unusual browsers, I'm using javascript to detect the correct version of Flash Player. If you don't have Flash Player 8, you get a static image. So as far as googlebot, other bots, PDAs or anti-flash surfers are concerned it's the same old images and text. (I don't like having to choose "Flash" or "No Flash" on a web site, so I'm only showing flash to the people that can see it. If I can detect it, I can save my visitors from having to make a decision.)
I hope this clears up some questions.
While google still is having some difficulties with hidden text detection, it's coming, they're looking at it a lot. And if they can get some parts automated fully - display:none, visibility:hidden should be especially easy, especially for large blocks of text - whatever the developer's 'intention' is may not matter much.
But personally, I'd like to encourage as many people as possible to follow the fine advice given here to use hidden text, display none, content in <object> tag, whatever, since that will make it that much easier for non flash developers to rank their sites long term.
If you like popping content in <object> tags, you'll love stuffing <noscript> or <noframes> tags too.
The reason the person advocating this stuff hasn't had problems YET is that google still hasn't gotten the automatic detection worked out. When they do, I'll make sure to follow the google threads about it with some amusement.
As for the original rewrite, that sounds great, really good and intelligent use of flash, keep it clean, like images, as you can see, your users loved it. I'm not surprised, intelligent use of flash like this is so rare that I might even be tempted to not leave immediately.
Of course, judging from what you said above, I'd guess that the reason visitors like your flash is that your flash is, again, very unusually, actually GOOD. That's about as common as good bars on the moon.
Another good thing to show a prospective client is a full flash site using firefox with flashblock.
Quality Guidelines - Specific recommendations: Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
It is quite obvious what they are referring to in the guidelines. If you really think about it, some of what we do is hidden from the user. ;)
What Yahoo! Considers Unwanted
The use of text that is hidden from the user
Again, obvious what is being referenced here. Text that resides between <noframes> is hidden to the visual user. Text that resides in alt attributes is hidden to the visual user.
So, what's it come down to? If you think or feel that the text you are hiding is deceptive in any way, then it probably is. Don't listen to all the hype about automatic bans for hidden text, I don't think that happens. Unless of course there is a huge network being powered by hidden text, then yes, cya!
I'm looking at a site now that has three layers of hidden text through CSS. It's a site to behold (pun intended). Three complete layers of keyword rich content complete with the SEO goodies.
I'm also looking at another site that has a visible layer which has keyword phrases strategically aligned and shaded to create a very nice visual background effect (about 1024x768 worth). If there was any detection in the algo for this stuff, these sites would not be there.
But personally, I'd like to encourage as many people as possible to follow the fine advice given here to use hidden text, display none, content in <object> tag, whatever, since that will make it that much easier for non flash developers to rank their sites long term.
If you like popping content in <object> tags, you'll love stuffing <noscript> or <noframes> tags too.
Oh come on, where is this stuff coming from? Take a gander here...
13 Objects, Images, and Applets - 13.3.1 Rules for rendering objects
[w3.org...]
HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 - 10.3 Writing for browsers that do not support FRAME
[w3.org...]
The reason the person advocating this stuff hasn't had problems YET is that google still hasn't gotten the automatic detection worked out. When they do, I'll make sure to follow the google threads about it with some amusement.
Google isn't working on the automatic detection of this stuff. It can't! Why? Because the guidelines dictate how to make the content we are discussing accessible.
Sure, go ahead and leave your Flash <objects> without alternative content. If your a .gov site, be prepared for a lawsuit.
Do you really believe what you've stated above? That fulfilling a usability and accessibility requirement is going to get you banned by an algo?
Bear with me here please, I am quite passionate about this stuff. When you start seeing things discussed that may not be totally correct, especially when it comes to the use of HTML in its correct form, I get a little warm under the neckline. Just give me a chippy boy or something. ;)
Text that resides between <noframes> is hidden to the visual user. Text that resides in alt attributes is hidden to the visual user.
Quality Guidelines - Basic principles:
"Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
<noframes> is for users whose browsers don't support frames. So yes, this does help the user. <alt> and <title> tags are for users that have images disabled or are unable to view images. This also helps the user.
Using hidden text that the user, no matter the situation, is not supposed to see sounds like it falls under this question, "Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?" No.
It may seem justifiable but no matter which way you cut it, this particular hidden text is there for the sole purpose of the search engines. Maybe they let this slide, I really don't know for sure, and unless you do know for sure, you might want to think twice about it, thats all i'm trying to say.
Using hidden text that the user, no matter the situation, is not supposed to see sounds like it falls under this question, "Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?" No.
Answer in this case is yes, its for accesibility for those be they human or robot who can not read the flash file for whatever reason. On the basis of some of the comments I have heard here many tags as <label> ie <label for="what a great load of keywords you could pu here as the name of the form etc">field one</label> on forms (required under W3C XHTML strict) are going to be considered "hidden text" and therefore end up gettiing a site banned.
My take is that serving up alternate content on a page for those requiring it can not be wrong, if it is for W3C accesibility reasons, and that is what we do.
I notice the #*$!ing has started (insults to flash developers etc, rare good flash sites etc) so I will probaly stay out of this now. Its a shame you can not share an idea, that works for you, without all the old entrenched positions and back biting. To the original poster thank you for an interesting insight, my advice is to ignore some of the more fundamentalist comments.
On the basis of some of the comments I have heard here many tags as <label> ie <label for="what a great load of keywords you could pu here as the name of the form etc">field one</label> on forms (required under W3C XHTML strict) are going to be considered "hidden text" and therefore end up gettiing a site banned.
Not to drift off subject, but text from the <label> tag isn't hidden. I could be wrong, but i'm almost sure this is true.
Answer in this case is yes, its for accesibility for those be they human or robot who can not read the flash file for whatever reason.
Accesibility would be offering alternative content to the flash player or adding the option of showing "device fonts" instead of some type of styled font. Accesibility software isn't designed to read text wrapped inside a display:none tag. I think the purpose of "display" and "visible" were to create dynamic or overlapping images, similiar to flash.
The only possible reason to hide text with display:none that I can think of would be for the search engines. Can you honestly say that if the search engines weren't there you would keep text inside display:none wrappers?
I don't have an anti-flash agenda. I hope they do fix these problems in the future. I can build a smaller, better looking, faster loading website in flash in a fraction of the time it currently takes me to complete using xthml/css. SE's might also have a blind eye for hidden text when flash is involved. The problem is that nobody knows for absolutely sure. So people should be warned, at the very least, that using hidden text could lead to problems down the road.
Sure, go ahead and leave your Flash <objects> without alternative content. If your a .gov site, be prepared for a lawsuit.
Accessibility demands alternative methods of access, not hidden text. If I don't use a flash enabled browser it doesn't mean that your hidden text becomes visible. A browser without flash does not automatically remove display:none!
The way to do this is simple, a standard link below the movie stating "If you are unable to view this Flash movie, click here for an HTML version". Failing that, just put the HTML text (not hidden) below the movie.
I'd be prepared for the HTML versions to outrank the movies. So add links to the HTML pages "If you want a prettier version and don't mind waiting while it loads, click here for a Flash version".
Yes, as I said, the original poster obviously found a very good way to use flash. However, since this is a flash forum there's no point in saying anything more about flash itself, or flash websites, or using hidden text, or other forms of cloaking, which have all been talked about so much elsewhere that there's no point.
It was nice to see that intelligent use of flash proved to be a benefit to the site. Of course that simple point has to be pushed past what it was to full flash, hidden text, and hints at cloaking. Typical.
Hey thanks for the feedback. I don't worry about "fundamentalist" comments, the way I read through forum posts is if there are quote boxes the importance of that post is deminished and I move on to the next post. (I wish there was a sort button for this)
Actually I could see things going down hill because every post was starting to have a quote box. That's why I posted a followup with more details.
Let me point out that I don't have hidden text, alt tags, noscript tags, noframe tags or text in my object tags. I have a few paragraphs of text that appear just below the fold, a clear title to the page and a well written description tag. It's a very simple site, and it sits at #1 in Google, MSN and Yahoo for the main keywords and top 10 for every related keyword to the service the site provides.
I've been around this board for a while and I have learned many great things about SEO from many of you on this board. All I'm trying to do is give some feedback from something I've learned.
One more time... All I did was swap the images with flash "video" on three different pages, and people began contacting me to talk about the videos. People rarely contacted me to talk about how much they enjoyed my jpgs.
Now that I've had more time to think about this whole process, I have something else for you to think about...
We all know about blogs and pod casts and the value of good content. (That's why we're all here.) Now, think about this... You can do more for your visitors by providing them with a full multimedia presentation.
You can use Flash, Quicktime and plain text with CSS and SEO to create a top ranking full blown entertainment option for your visitors and make it fully downloadable for their iPod and it's an advertising medium for your business, service or information portal.
I'm not going to wait for the next big internet idea. Blog, Wiki or whatever. I'm working to make my site something that my visitors will want to show their friends because of it's entertainment value. In the end it helps me promote my business.
Think what you want about my experiment with Flash, but for those of you who are looking for a way for your site to go big... Think big!
[macromedia.com...]
*moderators, please pull if URL is not allowed.
I've modified the code to set a cookie if the correct flashplayer is detected, this helps me track how many visitors can see my videos.
I also modified the code to show the flash content only if it will work and to show a jpg for everyone else.
I've modified the code to set a cookie if the correct flashplayer is detected, this helps me track how many visitors can see my videos.
I'm curious to know what percentage of your visitors cannot see the videos. It has to be a very low number?
I don't force flash on anyone, but I do display a small link for people without flashplayer 8, I'm not sure how many follow the link though.
I would say it's about 40% at the moment.
Yikes! That is not a low number at all. I was thinking it would be more in the 5-10% range, not 40%! Is that because of the player version?
For Flash penetration statistics see:
[macromedia.com...]
Bottom line - Version 8 had 45% penetration back in December, and the other versions were well above 90% penetration.
And with all the hoopla about "hidden text"... The most honest and straightforward approach is to put it as visible text on the page inside a <div> tag and then have your Flash detection script replace that content with your Flash movie. If you do this then you're ADA compliant, there's no question about whether the text is "hidden" or not since everyone without Flash will see it, and you support Flash when available (which is most of the time).
This is the approach that's used by the FlashObject script which I recently found when I needed a way to use Flash that wouldn't be negatively affected by Microsoft's "update" to IE - the one that's the result of the Eolas lawsuit (due out tomorrow I believe).
[blog.deconcept.com...]
It's easy to implement and seems like a pretty great script.
Flash is a great program and can do lots of good thing. Currently we use it one support widgets on the site. It's not mixed with critical contents, but it's use to make our lives easier for lots of things, without having to add a javascript on the actual page.
Results - It makes for smaller pages since we don't have to insert heavy scripts in the HTML, yet it works well within the site and is easily accessible.
About the Alt tag, I was under the impression that it is not hidden text, as putting your mouse over the picture in IE, will reveal the image's description.
