Noframe & Noembed tags

Noframe & Noembed tags --- Are these tags consider as hidden text

[Ann4SEO]

Hello,

I have used noembed & noframes tag in many sites & the result is always good. Means Google regular crawls my site and even sit is ranking pretty good for most of the targeted keywords.

My only concern is that whether these tags are considered as hidden text means, the text written within these tags are not visible to users and are only for SE's.

Please guide....

Thanks & Regards -- Ann

[Ann4SEO]

NO one there to answer my question.

Is question not clear or already been answered. I searched but couldn't find any related post. If any, please post the URL.

[rainborick]

Using <noframes> as it is intended is actually the recommended procedure. Use it to provide content for browsers that don't support frames and the search engines will simply treat it as standard content on the page where it resides. Just avoid overstuffing the section with keywords or other nonsense.

<noembed> is non-standard and is probably ignored by the search engines.

[jomaxx]

You seem to be implying that you're using it in order to enhance your rankings, in which case YES it is obviously a crude form of spam. You can use the <noscript> tag too, if you want to dig an even bigger hole for yourself. However using these tags for their intended purposes should be fine.

[Ann4SEO]

@ rainborick
<noembed> is non-standard and is probably ignored by the search engines.

noembed are not ignored by search engines. I cans say that as i have used noemebed tags for flash in websites. The example could be [link removed]. The site home page is in flash. If you see its cache text, you will find the text written in noembed tags. That means that google read this alternative tags.

Mod note... Links to specific sites not allowed. Ann's description should suffice to describe what you'll see, though I should add that, IMO, the embed tag embellishes quite a bit.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:05 am (utc) on July 21, 2007]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]

[Ann4SEO]

@jomaxx
You seem to be implying that you're using it in order to enhance your rankings, in which case YES it is obviously a crude form of spam. You can use the <noscript> tag too, if you want to dig an even bigger hole for yourself. However using these tags for their intended purposes should be fine.

Yes, i am using it to provide alternative text for SE's & non-EMBED or non-framed capable browsers. I know if we stuffed keyword just in order get high rankings then its spam but this is true for even a text content in a website.

Thanks for replying. Now i can easily use these tags to just provide alternative text to all non capable browsers. :)

[Robert Charlton]

To jump in here, since I removed Ann4SEO's <noembed> example... where I've had to optimize noframe areas, I stick very closely to what's on the framed page or pages. I think it's asking for trouble to do otherwise.

In the case of Flash pages, the problem often is that the Flash content tends to be non-verbal, and generally text that might be added isn't on the Flash page.

In the example Ann showed, I would say that the <noembed> content was, to borrow a phrase from an earlier post, "a crude form of spam."

I can't comment how <noembed> content is weighted by engines on anything competitive, but it clearly is being seen.

A "classic" way to optimize a Flash page is to have your page default to an html page if no Flash is detected, and put an html copy of your text content on that page. Bots won't execute the Flash scripting and will see the default html. But I'd be wary about misrepresenting what is in the Flash content.

An all Flash site represents, IMO, insurmountable optimization problems, at least for anything competive, because the site architecture that helps you optimize an html site simply isn't there.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:48 am (utc) on July 21, 2007]

[Ann4SEO]

To jump in here, since I removed Ann4SEO's <noembed> example... where I've had to optimize noframe areas, I stick very closely to what's on the framed page or pages. I think it's asking for trouble to do otherwise.

I do agree with you. As I also provide text which is there within the framed page.

In the case of Flash pages, the problem often is that the Flash content tends to be non-verbal, and generally text that might be added isn't on the Flash page

In the example Ann showed, I would say that the <noembed> content was, to borrow a phrase from an earlier post, "a crude form of spam." .

You mean to say the noembed text in the example website is a “crude form of spam.” The text was from the flash and little extra text with links was within the internal page. The text was just an introductory text of the website. Also, this is a client website & they never agreed to change the home page from flash to text based. In order to optimize the site, if I linked few internal page from noembed text, will it be considered as spam.

I can't comment how <noembed> content is weighted by engines on anything competitive, but it clearly is being seen.

A "classic" way to optimize a Flash page is to have your page default to an html page if no Flash is detected, and put an html copy of your text content on that page. Bots won't execute the Flash scripting and will see the default html. But I'd be wary about misrepresenting what is in the Flash content.

You mean to say that (correct me if I am wrong), firstly, it will check whether the users browser can read flash or not and depending on that, it will be redirected to flash or html page. I am not a technical person for it, so can you please tell me a how to do it. It will be a great idea and can help me to optimize it further.