Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.162.157.249

Message Too Old, No Replies

News regarding noscript

use of noscript

     
1:14 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



I just returned from a meeting with a SEO company who have been using the noscript for implementing there information pages. They just told me that the noscript tag no longer is read by Google. So if you use the noscript to point to a sitemap that sitemap will no longer be found be Google.

Can any one confirm this?

Regards

Kristian

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:30 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2006]
[edit reason] no sig urls please. tanks [/edit]

1:32 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Google flips on/off support for noscript indexing from time to time.

They *will* still follow urls found in noscript section (will not pass pr), but they may not index the content found in the noscript section.

1:51 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



Ok, either way, noscript should not be used to ensure that google will find my content.
1:56 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



> find content

Yes, it will "find the content". It will even follow urls found in comment tags.

2:00 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



Ok but to pass PR I should not use the noscript
2:29 pm on Oct 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



right.
2:11 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



I think this is a great idea. I have a few clients with heavy flash sites and some were trying the noscript tag. I immediately started thinking...whats to keep everyone from developing flash sites and hiding all the ugly stuff in noscript tags?

It is one thing to develop a useful site map but it is a totally different animal to develop a sub-par version for search engines.

I blogged a little bit about <snip> which ranks well for the <snip>, but is an all flash homepage. Turn off your javascript (firefox web developers toolbar makes this easy) and then you see what is going on. Even though this is the homepage so PR passthrough isn't a big deal, it still indicates a potential major exploit.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 6:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 17, 2006]
[edit reason] please - no keywords - especially of competitors [/edit]

9:56 am on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



Perhaps this goes for the noframes tag as well, I did a seo project for a client who's site was framed :) and I tried to stuff the noframes tag with a frameless version of the most relevant content and deep links. The result wasnt as good as expected, perhaps because the noframes tag is also regarded as "spam-potential".
10:59 am on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I don't know the current status of noframes. It was often rumored to be on of the main penalties around the florida update. So alot of guys quit using it...
11:23 am on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member



"I don't know the current status of noframes"
It works fine for spamming I know a page that ranks for one very competitive key word that repeats the keyword/anchor text over 40 times in the noframes,I have reported to google spam , no action taken .......
Now about the nonscript ,works at its best also for spamming
H1 ,H2 tags all over the place with targeted key words ....page ranks top,have reporeted to Google spam ,no action taken.......
3:01 pm on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



So far had 12 examples presented to me and all 12 have other reasons for high rankings. Anyone else?

> text over 40 times in the noframes

There is no way the page is getting rank based on that. Googles on page dupe checker would discount that. It is so flagrant, they wouldn't even bother penalizing it - the algo just pretends it doesn't exist. What you have is 40 examples and only 1 of them actually counting.

 

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month