SEO Question

Meta Refresh considered cloaking?

[katana_one]

So I've set up this Flash page which basically constitutes our whole "site" in a single Flash file, per my employer's directions.

Then he wanted to create an HTML site with all of the relevant content (pretty much duplicates the contents of the Flash file), but he only wants this for search engine indexing purposes. He doesn't actually want people to use these pages, so I use a meta refresh at the top of each page to re-direct visitors to the main Flash page.

Is this considered cloaking?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum - I didn't see an SEO forum.

[Quadrille]

I don't think they consider it cloaking - but I also don't think HTML pages that redirect will be usefully indexed.

I don't think you can have it both ways - if you want flash, you have to live with the consequences.

Much better to give your visitors a choice - then you'll get full indexing and no confused visitors!

[Receptional Andy]

It isn't cloaking either way, but how a meta refresh is treated will depend on how long before the redirect. A 0 second refresh to another page is a poor-man's permanent redirect - so your HTML content may not be indexed at all. A very short redirect is not advisable, since this could easily be perceived as malpractice. Anything in between is, well, in between ;)

I second Quadrille's advice to offer the user a choice - even if this is just a link to a non-flash version within your "flash-only" pages.

Better still would to be to use flash more sparingly and not rely on it for your site's content - at best any links your site attracts will be diluted or could be to the "wrong" version.

There are alternative approaches if there must only be one page for a completely-flash and completely non-flash page (<noscript> or <noembed> for example), but they are always going to be a bit of a workaround, and far from ideal.

[edi2004]

Search engines crawling and indexing your pages.
Then people will search in Google and found the static pages.
If you use meta refresh, this is deprecated, it's not recommended.

So i think the best way is using javascript to redirect to the flash page, but you should consider that people is looking the same content as they found in Google search. So you should create the flash maybe like this:

People found this url in Google Search:
http://example.com/my.dogs/lassie.html

So you should create script in that url and redirect to the flash page, maybe something like this:
http://example.com/flashver/index.html?referrer=/my.dogs/lassie.html

The referrer here can control your flash and the flash will show the same content as the static page, that is "/my.dogs/lassie.html".

But, maybe some people have difficulties with flash page.
So it's better to give people some choice as above.

Just sharing some ideas. I hope this can help you.

[edited by: phranque at 12:56 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]
[edit reason] exemplified urls [/edit]

[katana_one]

Thanks for the replies.

If I had my way, there would be no Flash at all. I personally see no need for it to be there, but these decisions are not up to me.

Mainly, I'm just trying to make sure that G and the other engines don't penalize us.

[phranque]

you should look into swfobject as that may suit your purposes for providing alternate content to non-flash user agents.

[Quadrille]

It's not about penalizing you; it's about SEs simply not being able to read flash, and (wisely!) not indexing pages that redirect them elsewhere.

There's no penalty involved.

The point for Flash fans (like your client), is that they have to live in the real world, and make tough choices.

And the wise ones won't choose invisibility ;)

[nealrodriguez]

you may want to recommend that your employer embed a smaller cut of the flash file into the entire spider-friendly page; this way the site can have a touch of flash to give it that whatever, and yet be indexed by the se's.