Framesets, redirects and search engines

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Framesets, redirects and search engines

Florida88

12:11 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

As far as redirecting, does the following frameset present a problem on google? We use it on older pages that we had on a site before a redesign. We have lost some ranking position and are trying step by step to see where the problem might be.

tedster

4:08 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google and other modern search engines usually crawl framesets with no trouble. Sometimes, if the framed pages are from different domains, there can be some confusion about which page actually gets credited with the framed content - I have especially seen this, even recently, on Yahoo.

I would not suggest combining framesets and redirects, unless you are hoping to confuse a search engine.

WebMojo

5:33 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am experiencing a similar issue:

I have 2 seperate sites on one hosting account, and I use URL Frame redirects for both sites...

I also use Dreamweaver templates to creat my pages for both sites...

Now I notice when my site appears in the Search Results, the title of my site says "Your browser does not support frames. We recommend upgrading your ..."

I searched everywhere, I dont use Frames in the HTML of my site... It must either be the URL Frame settings with the DNS service I use, or it is because of the dreamweaver template page settings or something...

Anybody have any thing for me?

encyclo

5:51 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Frames are generally bad news in all circumstances. Florida88: for redirecting old pages, you risk confusion at best and a duplicate content penalty at worst. You need to look at doing a real server-side 301 permanent redirect, either with mod_rewrite or scripting. Do a quick search of the forum, there are a load of threrads about this subject.

WebMojo, your case is a typical example of what I mentioned above for Florida88: Google is indexing your URL frame redirect page rather than your real content. In your case, you need to sort out your hosting to make sure your domain names resolve directly to the site without using a framing service. Most hosting companies can host two sites within the same server space for a modest fee.

I haven't even touched on the significant accessibility and usability problems you get with framed content - this aspect alone make using frames a bad idea.

WebMojo

6:06 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the good advice, I'm already searching the posts for what you speak of...

tedster

8:09 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Here's one of the best:

Pros and Cons of Frames [webmasterworld.com]

Florida88

8:32 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Great.

I also will do some homework tonight in WebmasterWorld on 301 and mod_rewrites.

There has to a reason I went from 1 or 2 SERPS in Goolgle to maybe 8 thru 12. Using the allin text, anchor or title --- I am #1.

Thanks for the help.

Florida88

9:37 pm on Oct 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

We are changing the 5 pages that have the framesets below as indicated in the above post using .htaccess.

Question: Do I need to remove the frameset code from the old pages or does the .htaccess file supercede this?

Also, I saw where we have a 2nd domain name pointing to our main site (yes I now know it's a no -no).

BlueWidgets.com pointing to Red Widgets.com and the BlueWidgets.com address shows in the address bar. BlueWidgets has NO web site, it simply points at RedWidgets and shows the same content and backlinks.

Should we also put a 301 here, or creat a webpage with new content and link it to the main site.

Thanks again.

Dave McClure

6:52 am on Oct 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am just considering reworking a frameset site that has a left menu and a main content. The history of this site goes like this -
1st incarnation, a frameset, pure and simple. Main problem was orphaned pages as most users arrive from topic searches.
2nd incarnation, as above but with javascript on the content pages reloading index (frameset) if page finds irself orphaned. New problem - this took people to the welcome page, not to the page they'd actually searched.
3rd incarnation, as above, but this time, if orphaned, the javascript displays a div on the page, saying 'why not visit the main site'. Better, because at least people can bookmark the page they've landed on, but still not great because if they go to the main site, they can't bookmark any more individual content pages.
OK here's what I'm thinking - please tear the idea to shreds before I waste a weekend -
Lose all javascript.
Using CSS, make each page display its content about 30% in from the left.
Make each page display a 30% div on the left which contains, wait for it, an Iframe.
Throw the menu page into the I-frame
It seems to me that this would have much the same appearance but with none of the problems. Each page would bookmark properly, the html would be very light and the menu would be a single page to update. And it doesn't depend on any scripting etc. This seems a valid use of an i-frame, no?

tedster

10:37 pm on Oct 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Valid, yes, but iframe still has all the liabilities of a regular frameset, including orphaned content pages and the inability to bookmark specific content.

My advice is to ditch all use of frames - just have a flat page with a menu that scrolls out of view. If the page scrolls very far, then put extra navigation at the bottom.

I have done this for several sites and the numbers always improved, sometimes dramatically. You can always save the old version and revert if there are problems.

Dave McClure

5:20 am on Oct 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tedster -
{just have a flat page with a menu that scrolls out of view.}
I can do that of course, and I have no objection to the appearance etc., but then what's the best way of updating the menu from time to time, as it now has to be included in say 100 separate pages instead of just one? Till now, I've always used notepad, but have started playing with html-kit. Maybe that can do batch updates for me? I'll investigate. Thanks for the reply.

tedster

5:26 pm on Oct 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Best way of updating the menu?

1. My choice is using a global search and replace function.
2. Another good choice is using a server side include (SSI) for the menu. The one drawback to the SSI approach is that, on at least some pages, it leaves a live link that reloads the page the visitor is on - but framesets also have that drawback.

Recent thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]

TheDoctor

11:05 pm on Oct 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

The one drawback to the SSI approach is that, on at least some pages, it leaves a live link that reloads the page the visitor is on

You could include a parameter to your SSI to indicate which menu option should have the live link turned off or omitted.

Dave McClure

6:35 am on Nov 1, 2004 (gmt 0)

Once again, I've found the discussion here and in the suggested other threads very helpful. I've reworked the site in question along different lines, doing away with side navigation altogether, flattening everything and creating top of page links in a div, rather like this forum's own site. It's fast and easy to use.

Florida88

1:01 pm on Nov 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Still need to ask this question again.

We are changing the 5 pages that have framesets below as indicated in the above post using .htaccess.

Question: Do I need to remove the frameset code from the old pages or does the .htaccess file supercede this?

Also, I saw where we have a 2nd domain name pointing to our main site (yes I now know it's a no -no).

Should we also put a 301 here, or creat a webpage with new content and link it to the main site.

Thanks again.