Can Flash detection cause problems

[doc_z]

Is a Flash detection (JS and/or swf) and automatic redirection on the main page causing problems? Is Google considering this technique as spam (i.e. as a doorway page or deceptive redirect)?

Has anyone experience with this scenario? I'm especially interested in cases when the main page is affected.

[Patrick Taylor]

My primary content is 100% Flash. I have an external JavaScript file which detects the presence of the required version of the player. If the player is present the Flash file is displayed and if not, the user is redirected to an HTML text-only replica of the opening Flash page with a player download option provided at the top. I also have text-only content within NOSCRIPT tags on the index page, and again this content strictly replicates the visible text in my Flash opening content (and part of this text content shows up below my URL listing in Google and therefore is being picked up as it should). I do not consider any of this is other than perfectly legitimate and would be both disappointed and surprised to be penalized by Google. Unfortunately I can't be sure I wouldn't be / haven't been penalized because my site is quite new and is caught up in Google's current bout of constipation, hence might simply not show where I believe it should for other non-penalty related reasons.

I've used the same strategy on other sites I've built containing Flash content, at least one of which doesn't seem to have been penalized as yet. The other ones I can't tell because they're also fairly new.

[bird]

If the Javascript redirect is the only way for a visitor to reach your "real" pages, then that will stop Googlebot in its tracks right there. It will simply never learn that you have more than one flash page on your site.

So you better make sure that your <noscript> section contains a liberal number of links into your actual content. As an added benefit, that will also be helpful for those (surprisingly many) human visitors who have disabled Javascript in their browser.

[doc_z]

Of course, I have also some content with links on the main page (for visitors as well as for bots). However, I'm not sure if this content is considered as spam (even if it's primary made for users) because of the automatic redirection.

I would prefer if Google would give more detailed guidelines, not just 'don't employ sneaky redirects'.

[Chris_D]

I encountered exactly this type of scenario recently!

The developer had put in autodetect script for Flash - and a javascript redirection if you didn't have Flash.

Problem was - as Bird alluded - if a user doesn't have Flash - what gives you the confidence to make you think they would have Javascript (either capability, or enabled)? And we all know Googlebot doesn't!

And just to top it off - the redirected to page (assuming they could actually get there, via the JS) was a graphic without an alt tag!..... Great for a disabled user - and great for SE spiders!

Not exactly a well thought through strategy for Section 508 (USA) or Disability Discrimination Act (Australia) Compliance.

If you use <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="10; url=http://www.yourdomain.com/text-only-version.html"> - and if you put the link in for the 'impatient' to follow immediately on the page - I think everyone will be much happier.....

Sometimes, i think the only answer is to take all the 'latest versions' and all the 'plugins' away from some developers - and make them use Lynx from a dialup 28Kb modem for a while...... (if they whinge too much, you could give in and upgrade em to the 56Kb modem)... and make em test it themselves!

: )

[Patrick Taylor]

In my case the text-only content inside the NOSCRIPT tags is exactly the same words as in the Flash opening "page" and provides HTML links to other text-only pages that similarly reflect the textual content elsewhere in the Flash file. So I consider this as squeaky-clean, especially given that over 10% of visitors - allegedly - don't have JavaScript enabled (as compared to - allegedly - maybe 1 or 2 % who don't have the Flash 5 player). The NOSCRIPT content is genuine.

The JavaScript redirect is within an external .js file and I've been informed that as such, the path to the redirect wouldn't be spidered. I might be wrong, but I'm assuming this "redirect" is pretty safe.

added: ... and yeah Chris_D - I'm whingeing - some people are misinformed about Flash and usability. I'm still waiting to know why Flash is a reason why a site isn't capable of being usable.

[Chris_D]

Hi Patrick_Taylor, Your solution sounds ok to me - I was offering an alternative solution to Doc_z's question, based on my experience.

I'm still waiting to know why Flash is a reason why a site isn't capable of being usable.

Are you confusing "accessibility" with 'usability'? If you can't access it.....

Instead of waiting, a good strategy to better understand accessibility is to download eg Lynx - a text based browser, and set about trying to ascertain for yourself whether you are able to actually 'access' a range of Flash sites.

Mostly - you can't - and the problem is that there is no 'equivelent functionality' - as you described you have provided - on many Flash based sites. And its not just Flash - bad HTML, text in .jpgs etc can be just as inaccessible.

But isn't it the fact that you have provided separate text based equivelent content and linking the reason your site is viewable in a text based browser? And isn't that therefore part of the 'Flash issue' - that you had to separately duplicate your content to make your site accessible?

The W3C provides some good basics on accessibility issues. If you really want to know Patrick - start reading here: [w3.org...]

[doc_z]

Just for clarification: All the pages are easily accessible, even if you have neither JS nor Flash. For this purpose, I put some content and text links on the main page (leading to a non Flash version). However, the problem is if Google is considering this as spam because most of the people are redirected. Originally I also added a <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="15 ... tag on the page, but I removed it becaused I wasn't sure if it was causing problems with Google or not.

[Patrick Taylor]

Hi Chris_D. Thanks for your response. And yes, I might be confusing accessibility with usability. I read the W3C guidelines on designing sites for accessibility and couldn't see anywhere why a properly designed Flash site couldn't meet the priority requirements without resorting to a text-only version sitting alongside. That's what I meant by "still waiting", because I contributed to another forum on this issue, and asked that same question. It wasn't a challenge so much as a genuine enquiry.

[Chris_D]

Hi Patrick,

No Problem. Download Lynx and see what you can read.

Chris_D

[Patrick Taylor]

I'll give Lynx a try. Does it run okay on Windows XP? Their website doesn't actually say Windows XP as such. I'll maybe try the Lynx "viewer" URL first. Also I do test-view my sites with scripting and plug-ins disabled.