Forum Moderators: open
just saw a serp with an indexed flash page, can't still believe my eyes. At least [flash] is shown at the result.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:14 pm (utc) on April 28, 2004]
Oh, and how about the description snippet, how did that look?
just saw a serp with an indexed flash page, can't still believe my eyes. At least [flash] is shown at the result.
What kind of search? For a long time Google has been showing [flash] files when searcing for
site:www.foo.com
What's next - Excel spreadsheets? They should really keep all those non-html results out of the SERPS, imho. The same goes for email-lists, although those are formatted as html. Use a separate tab for non-web content or whatever, just keep the SERPS clean.
[edit: speling]
What's next - Excel spreadsheets?
With great respect, claus (I enjoy your posts very much), you are missing the point. A website designed to communicate a user experience, a message, and information is entirely different from an excel spreadsheet.
Indexing flash is important because countless websites have been designed with it. What this means is that there is a great body of meaningful information that is invisible.
A search engine's limitation should not dictate the way a website is designed. User experience and website intent must always be the foundation of a website's design. A website should be designed in a manner that is best for the audience and the message- not for what is best for the search engine. For instance, entertainment websites for music, movies, and game websites are an entirely appropriate context for Flash.
There are perhaps millions of websites with important information that have been ignored because of their inherent indexability. That's a great loss.
If these reports are true, it's time to brush up on your Flash coding skills.
If this report is true, then it's about time.
It doesn't work at all, but it's a first time for me, and should be a strong indication that Google now has the ability to do something with Flash files.
Not sure how I feel about it yet though...
Search in google for
famous painter dali
and my site should be #2 with art is fun in the title.
You can hardly tell which is text and which is flash..
It has a potential for abuse, much like that of the <noframes> tag, yet whilst Ive known some <noframes> content do very well in competitive serps, I know of few <noembed> flash pages that perform as well or at all...
My initial findings on a site im working with right now are inconclusive in that whilst the content of the tag is indexed, it performs poorly for its target terms.
Im just trying to establish whether the apparent poor performance is a result of a lower algo score attributed to the html that resides inside the noembed tag. If it is, then its not a problem I can move much of what is there outside so that its visible, although from an aesthetic viewpoint Id rather not.
Id be interested and grateful for any perspectives on this.
In that case, it is not your flash pages that are ranking well, it is your html pages that are ranking well.
Question: We all know Google is able to find links within flash files. Is that at all dependent on a version(i.e. Flash 3, 4, MX) of Flash?
How about the stuff people really search for, like, say, mp3's, mpegs, avi's, and other types of binaries like software. If they ever decide to index such very interesting content, should that also be in the regular SERPS? I would say no.
How do they decide what goes on a tab? I never click on a link to a doc file, and very rarely to pdf files.
I've never noticed the "information" part of flash sites...
Then you have a blind eye to what has been going on for the last few years. It's not your fault. I blame the search engines.
Here's a website from the Discovery Channel about Billy the Kid [dsc.discovery.com], a fine Flash website with lots of information that is in Flash.
As much as we dislike ... Flash
Please don't include me. I love it. I'm not talking about crappy endlessly-loading no-info Flash sites but the tool itself. I know it's been likened to a hammer in this forum, and I know some of the arguments for and against (and yes, it needs a plug-in, and raises important accessibility issues), but as a pure design tool, it can be a dream. I'm no Flash guru but for one thing vector graphics slashes load time, and wasn't it Brett Tabke who said each second over about five loses 10% of your visitors? For a site with graphics, that's maybe losing more visitors than a Google filter. And there's much much more.
I'm certain that like ATW did for a while, Google has long been able to read inside a .swf file - and not just links. The day when Flash pages are as indexable for their written content as any other web page can't come soon enough for me. Apart from anything else, it's time for a good shakeup - though doubtless Google will tread cautiously.
The flash inside is not indexed, which is why it doesn't rank higher, as it should.
To make sure we're discussing the same thing here: Is it accurate to say Google is indexing the Flash link (i.e. - the fact that a file exists), but not indexing anything inside the swf files?
Not sure if my wording there is very good, but hopefully someone can sort out what I'm asking. :)
Now I see some swf files indexed including their content.
I've nothing against people writing websites in flash for their own use and the amusement of their friends... but search engines really ought not be encouraging them - not if they believe that the web is the Library of Alexandria of the modern age rather than PT Barnum's commercial sideshow.
I'll stand corrected if someone can point me towards a flash site of genuine importance and informational benefit.
