Flash Site Needs Promotion...<no frames> tag the answer?

Newbie question on promoting a 100% flash site

[Drack_Ma]

Thanks to everyone that brings intelligent conversation and posts to this forum. I have been reading posts for what seems like days on end looking for an answer.

To no avail.

Situaiton: Client wants website promoted
Challenge: It is 100% flash and therefore has not content that the spiders can get in to index.

Would this work: Place a well thought out (for keyword density and prominence) paragraph within a <no frames> tag. This way I would have text for the spider to "eat" but should not interfere with the flash presentation.

BTW: You may have guessed it...the client does not want the site altered at this time.

Your help is appreciated.

[tedster]

Using a 100% frame with optimized NOFRAMES text, title and metatags might get the site at least to the edge of the radar screen here and there, but without some "real" text it probably won't be adequate.

Add to this the fact that Google has recently stopped using the NOFRAMES text altogether and you have been handed a problem that someone else created through an uninformed decision. I have yet to see an all Flash site well ranked. Even with the tricks people have found, they are still usually down the ladder pretty far.

I suggest trying to find a way to get text into the HTML. Maybe positioned below the FLASH movie and below the fold? In some parallel "printer friendly" pages? At the very least, in a few well-designed doorway pages?

If the client refuses to adopt to the search engine realities, they will learn that need to come up with other ways to drive in traffic. Directories can help, since there are human reviewers, not spiders and algorithms. Direct mail and email campaigns, banner ads, inbound links.

But nothing will give better results than some real text.

[grnidone]

I agree with Tedster. The fact of the matter is that spiders won't really read anything other than real text. Period. You could cloak, but it takes a lot of time to keep the ip lists updated. Cloaking is a full time job, and if not done properly can get you banned. Not worth the risk, IMHO.

I would explain this to your client.

And, explain to them that not every browser in the world can read flash. Add to that the people who have dog slow modems who won't wait for a flash site to load and your client is really limiting who their end user base is by *only* having flash.

At the minimum, keep the flash and make non-framed, non-flash part of the site for spiders, and human beings with old equipment.

-G

[seth_wilde]

I've had some success using layers (putting a layer with text behind the flash layer)........

[sean orourke]

>grnidone> Add to that the people who have dog slow modems who won't wait for a flash site to load

...add to that the people with high-speed connections who won't wait for a flash site to load...

[mousemoves]

i suggest you explain the search engine problem to your client with the following options offered:

Either don't expect much from the search engines in the way of rankings or hire a professional SEO who has lots of experience and resources available for cloaking etc, if ranking is mission critical.

i have found a high ranking flash heavy site with google.com. it is smashingpumpkins.com and my search phrase was 'smashing pumpkins'. smashing pumpkins is also the title. i have not analyzed the code completely, you may want to or seek out other sites to analyze.

does your client already have a well branded name that people will use to search for them on-line, or is the search phrase they are going after more generic?

note:
my answer is based on the site remaining 95-100% flash.

[tedster]

Interesting find, mousemoves.

I noticed the "RN" -- Smashing Pumpkins owns the RealName for their official site. My guess is that this fact carries a lot of weight in the Google algo. Coupled with a relatively unique search phrase and a well branded organization -- there you go, number one for a Flash site.

Interesting to note: on Alta Vista, the site is number 9 for "smashing pumpkins", but the RealName is still listed at the top of the returns, giving this site dominance in any case.

The only real competition for this search phrase comes from fan sites and some music industry sites, and they all link to the "official" site.

Also significant: if you search on "machines of god" (the title of their last CD) the official Flash site is buried (maybe not there) Outside of searching on the band name, the site still looks dependent on inbound links from the other fan and music undustry sites -- and Google counts 711 of those.

[austtr]

Tedster...

"Add to this the fact that Google has recently stopped using the NOFRAMES text altogether..."

I am still seeing framed sites in Google that use the <noframes>. Are you saying Google is giving all framed sites the flick or are you saying they are filtering out the <noframes> content and indexing the site pages behind the frames control?

More info please as this is a major issue for me.

[tedster]

The second one. They just skip the noframes text and index the actual frame content. This is similar to ignoring keywords meta tags and just indexing the body copy. It's what I'd do as well, if I ran a search engine.

It's an "Intermediate Level Spam Defense System".

[mousemoves]

thanks tedster, nice follow-up. does anyone know what Grnidone means by this statement:
"Cloaking is a full time job, and if not done properly can get you banned." I'm not trying to be rude, i'm just trying to understand. What does "banned" mean and how can it happen when cloaking?
---edit----
check this out, it's really funny! snarg.com

[eljefe3]

>>does anyone know what Grnidone means by this statement:
"Cloaking is a full time job, and if not done properly can get you banned." I'm not trying to be rude, i'm just trying to understand. What does "banned" mean and how can it happen when cloaking?

Cloaking is the presenting of certain information to search engine spiders and different information to web surfers (or very similar, but with nice graphics, or flash etc. without the same meaty HTML content that spiders like.)
Search engines are wary of this tactic as in the past certain types of web sites used this tactic to draw traffic to their site, even though the actual website was unrelated to what the surfer was looking for.

If you want to cloak, you constantly need to be checking ip numbers with user agents to stay on top of who is visiting your website.

Search engines have been known to come to your site appearing to be a surfer based on their UA, but coming from a known search engine ip block. If you don't stay on top of these things, the search engines will see that you are presenting two different pages and will "ban" you. In other words, they will drop the cloaked domain. So what grinidone is saying to paraphrase "either stay on top of it or don't cloak".

[mousemoves]

ok, once this domain is dropped, what happens to it? how long will it be before the search engine lists it again?
how do you fix this problem? do you just go register a new domain name and stop paying your fees for the banned domain name? if so, what happens if someone else then registers that banned domain name?

[grnidone]

MouseMoves,

I have heard many people from search engines say that once a site is banned, or black balled, it is on the sh*t list forever. You don't get it back. It is really something you don't want to have happen. There was an article that said something about that, and I will have to dig for it.

If someone else purchases the banned domain name, they are SOL. If you are blackballed, start over with a new domain, new ip address.

Altavista will even penalize you for being on the sharing an ip address with a banned site, even though, for most people, this is out of your control.

Search engines/ directories know that we need them, so they don't have to 'be nice'. We play by their rules, or we don't play.

Cloaking will not automatically get you banned. Search engines know we do it, and as long as the cloaked page represents what the site is about and does not have spam on it, they tolerate it. It is, however, a fine line, and who is to say that tomorrow a cloaked page *will* get you banned? The rules change every day.

Cloaking by ip address (the best way to go for most situations) is a full-time job. You must stay on top of it because search engines are changing/ adding the ips to their spiders *just* to stay ahead of the people who spam in their cloaks.

I personally don't like flash sites. They annoy me. However, I understand others do. If I had to have a flash site, then I would have an alternative non-flash site for spiders and people like me to look at. It is the safest, easiest way to go with spiders.

I do not cloak for my large corporate clients. There is too much of a risk. Instead, I nag them to change their pages to something search friendly.

-G

[mousemoves]

Thanks Grnidone. In my reference to your statement, I should have left out the 'full-time' I can understand that at least. I just left it in for context but i shouldn't have. The banned, it happening due to cloaking and what it means is what i didn't get. Again, thank you for your help.

I think i know why flash sites annoy you. flash is a tool that is good when used intelligently, like all other internet technologies, but you have probably seen to many bad examples. i.e where it isn't well done and the purpose/goals are lacking.

----edit----
i wonder in the case of a banned ip; when a person goes to register a domain name if it states that it has been registered before, and if so, if it's possible to contact the search engines and obtain it's status with them.

[Drack_Ma]

Thanks for the help, all.

I have been doing a lot of research into cloaking. It would seem that (with the purchase of a professionally maintained spider ip list) that the cloaking should not be all that difficult.

On that idea, has anyone registered "throw away" domains for this purpose. spider side is optimized. Human side is a mirror of content from primary site. Links on mirror site lead people into specific information on true target site.

If you get caught and banned...then the "throw-away" domain name gets banned. Further than that, you (as an SEO) are building traffic to a domain name that you own. If the client fails to pay...turn off the traffic or redirect it to one of their competitor sites.

I would really like to hear from anyone that is doing this or has tried it.

Please let me know the strong points and the weak points of this idea. If you have work arounds (for the weak points) that would almost be to much to ask for...but I would definietly appreciate it.

BTW, opinions are always appreaciated...people that speak from experience are "golden"! Anyone that posts to this please identify if you are speaking from experience or theory. Thanks to all!

[mousemoves]

please don't die on me people, but what is a "throw away domain". i'm speaking as a student, not based on theory or experience.

i hope you don't mind Drack_Ma, i just didn't want to waste an entire new thread on a definition.

[eljefe3]

>>but what is a "throw away domain".

A throw away domain is simply another domain that you use to generate traffic. If your main site is www.mycompany.com and it has company name, branding value etc. then you would not want to risk getting this banned. However a "throw away domain" could be www.otherdomain.com and mirror your original content closely (not exactly), yet allow you to cloak or otherwise optimize without interfering with www.mycompany.com .

[mousemoves]

thanks eljefe3. note; i do have theory and experience in some matters, but not with cloaking. it sure seems risky and nontrivial, at this point in my understanding.

[Drack_Ma]

Thanks eljefe3

I was not actually sure that this term would make sense...as I have not seen it used before. Eljefe3 you hit my meaning right between the eyes.

I would like to hear from anyone that has done this or has first person knowledge of it being done.

Also, is it an effective "protective barrier" in the event the SE bans the Otherdomain.com website...will the branded site that it refers into be kept safe?

Thanks

[sevraypr]

From a year's worth of "experience" cloaking a "new" domain and js redirecting the traffic to the clients main domain works great. (you won't have links on the cloaked pages becasue the visitors won't see them) Like previous posts have said, be sure of your cloaking procedure... you don't want to screw up. The new domain that you own can give you many benefits and when done correctly, increases in value in $'s and link popularity (which is getting to be the same thing in the SEO world. [snipped] does what it says it does... by the way, I'm not getting paid to say this... but I owe the guy for all his kind assistance.
I've cloaked perhaps several dozen new domains this past year, all with multiple sub pages. It is a full time job at this level just keeping the optimization current for all the different pages and SEs. Have lots of fun. :)

Welcome sevraypr, I'm afraid I had to edit your post. Please check your StickyMail, link at the top of the page.

Edited by: NFFC

[Drack_Ma]

sevraypr - Thanks a bunch, I appreciate your confirmation of this working. I am going to begin testing this method within the next several days (on less important sites)

Anyone else have any input/experience with this?