Forum Moderators: open
To direct users to the proper page, I created a page that checks for a cookie from the no-Flash page, using a perl script. Let's call that page widgets.html. Widgets.html has the same text and links as the low-speed and high-speed pages in the site, but does not have any graphics. If the user has the cookie, he is immediately forwarded to the no-Flash page, widgets1.html. If he doesn't have the cookie, he's directed to a connection speed detection page (widgetsa.html). If he's on a dialup, he gets sent to widgets1.html. If he's on broadband, he gets sent to another page (widgetsb.html) that checks for the Flash plug-in. If it's there, he's sent to the Flash page, widgets2.html.
All of this happens so quickly that most users would never see the redirect.
Back in mid-May, when a lot of sites including mine disappeared from Google, I pulled all the redirect pages and the Flash pages from the site, leaving only the low-speed pages. I thought that perhaps the redirect pages were violating Google's rules. Some webmasters have said that, no, they didn't. When I checked the cached version of widgets.html, I found that I was being redirected to the widgetsa.html page, which no longer existed on the server.
Sorry for the long preamble, but here are my questions:
1. Do you think that Google accepts redirect pages such as these?
2. Does a googlebot have enough time to read the widgets.html page, or is it being redirected to and reading either the widgets1.html or widgets2.html pages?
3. Is this risky behavior on my part?
My client wants to have a page with as much "sizzle" as possible, but still get dialup users to visit. I'm trying to accomodate him.
Thanks for your patience in reading this, and for any replies.
Every search engine I submitted to indexed the site properly. It's just Google and this new algorithm that has me concerned.
Dick
