Very interesting approach

Can anyone figure out what is going on here?

[feeder]

If you go to this URL [url snipped]
and view source there is very little visible text showing.

However, if you send webmasterworlds sim spider to this url you get a mass of keyword loaded text.

Any ideas how this is being achieved?

[Macguru]

They are using a spammy frame trick. They fill the <NOFRAME> with keywords and give 100% to one frame and "*" for the other. May I make the comment that the page title and meta keywords stink?

Try viewing the source directly with JavaScript off.

[oilman]

Well - for starters that root url is a redirect so I'm going to assume you are looking at the redirected page. All that text you see is in comment tags ie: <!--text here--> and therefore doesn't show up on the screen. The general consensus on commented text is that it is largely useless these days.

There's also the good ol' frame stuff that Macguru mentioned.

[feeder]

Cheers

I cant see the frame. How can you tell it's sitting in a frameset? I'm using the view source from the menu on explorer which doesn't seem to indicate this?

[Macguru]

Did you deactivate JS?

[feeder]

(edited by: feeder at 11:39 pm (gmt) on Sep. 6, 2001

[Macguru]

Please feeder stop posting stuff that may link to them.

[feeder]

"Did you deactivate JS?"

I thought I had. I'll re-try.

Can you explain how java-script would alter the frame display?

[feeder]

Apologies. Was just tring to illustrate what I was seeing.

[oilman]

feeder - if you de-activate js you will stay at the frameset page. Currently they are using a js redirect to forward from the root domain that is framed to the homepage.html.

I wouldn't waste anymore time worrying about these guys. The aren't doing anything useful and what they are doing is done poorly and is easily spotted.

[Macguru]

No problem feeder, I think you understand the issue.

Try using your browser with JS off, it helps a lot when analysing. This index.htm is actually a frameset, one frame is visible (100%) and the other is not (*). The JS redirect is on the invisible one. This is no ethical practice and by no mean a long term investment.

<added>Opera is the best tool around to dig those gimmicks and overall fast on the fly analysys</added>

(edited by: Macguru at 11:57 pm (gmt) on Sep. 6, 2001

[feeder]

Many thanks :)

Once again proof that this board is the best SO forum there is.

So this tactic is frowned upon by the engines?

[Macguru]

100%,*

Is not the smartest thing I saw. :)

[feeder]

Ermmm.... "100%,*"??

Is that a yes?
(I realise that refers to the 100% frame-set)

[oilman]

yup ;)

just about the easiest thing to spot. Even if you get it indexed odds are that it won't last long.

[Brett_Tabke]

Yep - frowned upon, and was a members 'related' site.

[Macguru]

If you are running Windows it's File - preferences (or alt p) select plugins and its all yours. 789.5 clics less than MSIE :)

Didle with the right button of the mouse on framed sites or any other elements. The fun part is that almost everything has keyboard shortcuts on this thing. The only drawback is that the free version is loaded with the most agressive blinking ad banner to get you into buying it. ;)

P.S. Don't forget to reload a page or the previous one if it was first loaded with JS on.

[feeder]

"Yep - frowned upon, and was a members 'related' site."

I'm not quite getting it (must be a Friday) -could you elaborate?

[feeder]

Thanks macguru. No doubt a career in Opera support awaits :)

[feeder]

Now I'm Opera'd and minus java-script I seeing what you are taking about.

Yuck!

Is this bit doing the redirect you describe?
(Hope its ok pasting this bit - it doesn't appear to have anything that identifies the site)

<!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/links.lbi" --><a href="index.htm#search_engine_optimisation"><img src="fr_images/image.gif" alt="search engine optimisation" border="0"></a>
<a href="index.htm#search_engine_strategy"><img src="fr_images/image.gif" alt="search engine strategy" border="0"></a>

[Macguru]

What does Brett means is that some member here did that job and he sometimes feels that he his running a kindergarden here. :)

I am satisfied with my own career for now, I just like a lot this browser, it became my default browser.

[feeder]

Mac-guru: yes, it seems a lot less clunky than I.E.

Is it the 100% frameset that is frowned upon or is it the redirect? Or both?

(i.e if you had a flash site based in a 100% frame set with no redirection, but the <no frames> tag contained text similar to the flash text is that ok?)

[Macguru]

What is not OK here is that this frametrick uses legitimate components for the sole purpose of feeding goodies to spiders. The <NOFRAME> tag is perfectly OK if you have legitimate use of frames and a zero or 1 pixel size frame is rarely one of them. JS redirect is perfectly legit in some other cases, like browser on plugin detection.

If you have a 100% flash site the best option is to make a plain HTML version of the site and to let the user decide what he wants to get.

Good luck with Opera, it takes some time to get used to, but it is a very practical tool of the trade.

[feeder]

Thanks once again Macguru and cheers for the Opera tip. I can see myself using it a lot in future.

[john316]

Hey macguru, MacLynx picks that stuff up pretty good too. It looks like wisenut is letting that trick into the index, I saw a good kw spammed for 15 of the top 20 with that frame bit.

[IanTurner]

Let's hope Wisenut reads here like some of the other engines.