Forum Moderators: open
Let me briefly explain the scenario then ask some opinions...
Here's my thinking....
I know there are inherent dangers in my approach but the client is aware of it and says to go ahead...
Anyone else have any opinions, suggestions or comments?
Thanks
Nick
There are certainly a few different strategies that you can go with.
>>>>I know there are inherent dangers in my approach but the client is aware of it and says to go ahead...
It seems that you have creative freedom....go with it. One thing to remember is that if you are going to use an unconventional method, make sure there is a clause or addendum to the contract (if there is one) that addresses this. This will put you in the clear if they catch a penalty or some reprecussion from the method they approved of to save their Flash site.
Nick
>>Anyone else have any opinions, suggestions or comments?
Forget about them, get a huge PPC budget, and/or cloak.
If they wont build some HTML version they loose SE referals and most users when they find the site. Cloaking is a more expensive because someone will have to develop content, anyhow.
They still believe you do your job with a magic wand?
I try to convince such prospects of using the right stuff, but rarely spend more than 2 hours at it with them.
When they mature, (if they do) they wont be back at you anyways. Most of these executive decisions hide stuff to puke about.
I dont want such customers. Why hire a consultant if they wont listen? Flush them down, dont waiste any more of your time.
However, I could always use some extra cash, and as it's for a client of a client I have no input really with the end person.
If it's just a matter of stuffing a div full of their keywords (in text, not just spammy) and getting them included in INK etc then it's easy money....
Nick
SPAM will get you almost anywhere. Just make sure it's at theyre own risk. Even then, it wont worth the bad mouthing you could get from this crap.
I would stay away from them.
Of course, it was just my 2 cents.ca.
Cloaked or spammy, 100 % flash sites usually dont get listed in major directories. Without those listings, some search engine rankings will be more difficult to achieve. I think it is part of a SEO's responsability to teach web designers how to built web sites that are at least compatible with the media.
Those not listening usually refuse to admit they did wrong. With such an ego in the way they will never see the value of a good SEO job. They will keep on popping those great 100 % flash sites and see the SEO service as a post production step. So you will always be stuck with the same dilemma working with them.
I my book, they can get some cheap doorways and metatag job elsewhere and get submitted to 30 000 search engines if they like. I wont risk my agency's reputation by popping spam for them.
[edited by: Macguru at 7:53 am (utc) on Sep. 4, 2002]
Although I have had excellent success with Shockwave applets, the site itself is still HTML based. The dynamic content of the applets allowed mutliple listings in DMOZ (now 27 - of which most Shockwave "deeplinked" pages have two each) because of the dynamic ability to explain "specific topics" in many different categories visually and far better than text/image pairs.
These 27 listings -- transferred to Google, AOL, and most other search engines as well as DMOZ clone sites, substantially increased PR and pushed the pages to the top with only a limited amount of text, tags and attributes.
I don't see however, how a single applet (a complete site) and no text could achieve anything beyond targeting phrases that few others target (say 20 in total in SERP's).
Individual Flash "page turners" dynamically linked together may be able to produce slightly better results, but without a high degree of quality backlinks to induce an "authority status" I think the effort would be in vain.
I promote a few sites that had a visible HTML version developped after the Flash version was made.
Visitors are offered a choice between HTML version and Flash version on home page (wich is HTML). Month after month, between 70% and 80% of visitors consistently pick the HTML version when given a choice. Same thing for the pages views. We average 4 views per visitors with the flash versions and a little less than 20 for the HTML version.
It seems that fixing search engine incompatiblity, by any means, but without making a decent visible HTML version wont solve all problems...
Nice one Knighty ;)
Nick
