Benefit of HTML vs. PDF with Google

[alika]

We've been battling over which format to present a particular product, whether we'd go for PDF or for HTML with a link to the PDF version. The PDF version will include the charts and graphics, while the HTML version will just include the text. But our IT folks don't want to do the HTML, just PDF

Is there any benefit to present a paper as HTML as opposed to merely PDF from the perspective of Google? I know about the arguments that PDF interrupts user flow because of the additional step of opening the file in Acrobat. But what about SEO considerations -- which format will be better for the search engines?

[dibbern2]

I have lots of pdf's, and although they are indexed by G, it seems my corresponding html page gets indexed faster, and ranks a little stronger. It might be that the page file has key indexing points: title, meta description, H1 tags, etc.

I think the html page is more likely to win in-bound links also, although there is no technical reason for that.

[Robert Charlton]

Is there any benefit to present a paper as HTML as opposed to merely PDF from the perspective of Google?

In the comparisons I've looked at, a well-optimized html version wins hands down. As dibbern2 says, many more "key indexing points."

Also, I think that users like to click on html files much more than on pdf links.

[tangor]

I offer both, where I have both available. The PDF is EXACTLY the way the presentation (text/images) is intended... the HTML is lightweight in that regard... and missing some of the images. If the visitor wants the WHOLE enchilada they have to order #2 instead of #1. :)