Your browser does not support frames.

How much traffic does it REALLY cost?

[EX_S]

Not really about keywords, but I thought I'd share an interesting observation about descriptions in the SERPs. Today, a non-technical workmate looked for the NSW RTA website in Google [google.com]. The description of the site was:

RTA Home Page
Your browser does not support HTML frames. Click here to proceed. Your browser does not support JavaScript. Click here to proceed.
Description: State government authority that builds major roads, promotes road safety, manages traffic, regulates...

She wasn't even going to click on the link, but before giving up, she turned to me and asked "What's wrong with my browser? Why can't I view the site?"

So I'm wondering, for those who put such a message in NOFRAMES, are they turning away more than just the 1% who can't view frames?

[pageoneresults]

There should always be <noframes> content. I've only worked within 2 frame structures, and that is once you travel beyond the static no frames sections. The example site you provided has 5 frames! It appears that they are using browser detection of some sort, they are not detecting yours.

So I'm wondering, for those who put such a message in NOFRAMES, are they turning away more than just the 1% who can't view frames?

Not only that, they are turning away spiders too!

[ciml]

Most of my efforts recently have been to do with Google.

To find that just one or two of the pages in the same term-space as my new site have equal or higher PageRank than the PR I predict for my new site, then to find the kind of content you describe in the competitions' sites makes me very, very happy. ;)

Calum

[Mark_A]

EX_S > So I'm wondering, for those who put such a message in NOFRAMES, are they turning away more than just the 1% who can't view frames?

Yes I think almost certainly they are.
For example I for one usually don't bother to visit such sites out of disgust for bad frames implementation.

I think immediately .... huh they have not taken the effort to ensure that a description showing in search engines is indicative of their content .... well that is probably an indication of how little effort they have put in on my "their intended user's" behalf.

BTW for me the same goes for
"best viewed in xyz" messages ..

1. It is possible to have a framed site where a decent description appears in search engines.

2. It is not that hard to make framed sites contain a fully working non framed version which users of non framed browsers can visit and navigate without realising that there is a framed alternative.

3. It is possible to make a framed site perform better in many search engines than a non framed site.

4. if the site is created using static html without any server side includes it is often easier to maintain / upate a large site using a framed rather than non framed layout.

5. it is possible to reload frames around a contents page which a user may have arrived at if their browser supports frames (and javascript) and if their javascript is off which is rare then it is possible to make the site linking structure such that they (those with frames enabled browsers) re enter the frames layout at their first click..

So why would it be that folk like that had not made the effort to implement any of these yet persist to use frames ... ?

Well it indicates that they did not make much of an effort.