Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[edited by: tedster at 6:26 pm (utc) on Mar 16, 2011]
<iframe>Alternative content here.</iframe><noframes>Alternative content here.</noframes><iframe src="" title="" id="">
<a href="">Anchor Text</a> - 140-160 character summary of the src destination.
</iframe>
Eric Enge: If someone did choose to do that (JavaScript encoded links or use an iFrame), would that be viewed as a spammy activity or just potentially a waste of their time?
Matt Cutts: ...In my experience, we typically want our bots to be seen on the same pages and basically traveling in the same direction as search engine users. I could imagine down the road if iFrames or weird JavaScript got to be so pervasive that it would affect the search quality experience, we might make changes on how PageRank would flow through those types of links.
It's not that we think of them as spammy necessarily, so much as we want the links and the pages that search engines find to be in the same neighborhood and of the same quality as the links and pages that users will find when they visit the site.
But Google was already testing a new iframe script designed to reduce load times without requiring sites to change any of their AdSense code. "We want to minimize the amount of time we spend blocking the publisher page," Google mathematician Michael Kleber said at the time. "We want a webpage to be as fast with ads in it as without. But we want to do it without having publishers recast. We want to do it without them changing anything on their page, because, you know, AdSense is on millions of websites, and there's no way we're going to get millions to change their pages.[theregister.co.uk...]
