Now I do realize what I am about to post is officially considered bad practice, because the same method can be used for malicious goals.
I am wondering however, what the community and Google thinks about the method I'm about to explain to bring an elegant solution to the SEO challenge for fully dynamic Flash sites:
SWFAddress (an extension to SWFObject) allows Flash sites to make use of the back/forward buttons by creating history items in the browser as the user navigates a site, ie:
These URLs are parsed by javascript as the user clicks forward and back, and the part after the '#' is passed to Flash to trigger new pages to pop up.
As a bonus, these URL's function as deeplinks into the site. This is where SEO possibilities come in.
Unfortunately search engines do not recognize the parts of URLs after the '#' as unique addresses. With mod/rewrite is problem can be countered however, since it will allow us to rewrite the url:
hence making it possible to submit a sitemap.xml to google using regular URLs, which are rewritten to a SWFAddress-compatible version. This might be the first issue regarding the goal to work towards 'white hat' SEO.
The second issue is, to make the approach actually a Flash SEO solution, is that we would create a rewrite rule to separate normal users from search bots. This is not done happily, yet it does allow for an 'optimum' result for our visitors:
Say the sitemap.xml leads the search engine to http://www.mysite.com/products. Mod/rewrite detects the spider and serves it an html-only page, containing a plain html version with the exact content the Flash page would have served a normal user, allowing a perfect index.
If a user hits this link from a Google results page, the http://www.mysite.com/products would be redirected to http://www.mysite.com/#/products/, creating a deeplink into the Flash site. Google gets a 100% index of our site, and the user recieves a perfectly working means of searching inside our Flash.
which off course will start to look a bit confusing.
Here I tried to lay out the dilemma I'm facing regarding meeting our client's wishes for SEO for their corporate Flash sites, while maintaining Google's friendship, and doing so in a user-friendly way.
Any comments? Would Google really crack down on sites using the method outlines above, executed fully in the 'don't be evil" spirit?
> Now I do realize what I am about to post is officially considered bad > practice, because the same method can be used for malicious goals.
> I am wondering however, what the community and Google thinks about the > method I'm about to explain to bring an elegant solution to the SEO > challenge for fully dynamic Flash sites:
> SWFAddress (an extension to SWFObject) allows Flash sites to make use > of the back/forward buttons by creating history items in the browser > as the user navigates a site, ie:
> These URLs are parsed by javascript as the user clicks forward and > back, and the part after the '#' is passed to Flash to trigger new > pages to pop up.
> As a bonus, these URL's function as deeplinks into the site. This is > where SEO possibilities come in.
> Unfortunately search engines do not recognize the parts of URLs after > the '#' as unique addresses. With mod/rewrite is problem can be > countered however, since it will allow us to rewrite the url:
> hence making it possible to submit a sitemap.xml to google using > regular URLs, which are rewritten to a SWFAddress-compatible version. > This might be the first issue regarding the goal to work towards > 'white hat' SEO.
> The second issue is, to make the approach actually a Flash SEO > solution, is that we would create a rewrite rule to separate normal > users from search bots. This is not done happily, yet it does allow > for an 'optimum' result for our visitors:
> Say the sitemap.xml leads the search engine tohttp://www.mysite.com/products. > Mod/rewrite detects the spider and serves it an html-only page, > containing a plain html version with the exact content the Flash page > would have served a normal user, allowing a perfect index.
> If a user hits this link from a Google results page, thehttp://www.mysite.com/productswould be redirected tohttp://www.mysite.com/#/products/, > creating a deeplink into the Flash site. Google gets a 100% index of > our site, and the user recieves a perfectly working means of searching > inside our Flash.
> But the result of this would be that when the user continues to > navigate the site, the result would be the url for him would start to > look like this:
> which off course will start to look a bit confusing.
> Here I tried to lay out the dilemma I'm facing regarding meeting our > client's wishes for SEO for their corporate Flash sites, while > maintaining Google's friendship, and doing so in a user-friendly way.
> Any comments? Would Google really crack down on sites using the method > outlines above, executed fully in the 'don't be evil" spirit?
As SWFObject/SWFAddress both rely on javascript to execute, at least part of the functionality will be gone for users who don't have javascript enabled.
However, some fall back would indeed be possible, although definately no deeplinking into the flash site.
A user WITH flash, and NO javascript would be able to reach the homepage of the Flashsite following a link from a google results page.
As a bonus to the approach, the solution can be engineered in a way that the plain html, meant for bot indexation, can also serve as a backup for people without Flash, even if hardly any of those visitors would be expected.
Overall, we and our clients who go for the 100% flash sites pretty much assume all of their target audience will have both Flash and javascript enabled, though.
> As SWFObject/SWFAddress both rely on javascript to execute, at least > part of the functionality will be gone for users who don't have > javascript enabled.
> However, some fall back would indeed be possible, although definately > no deeplinking into the flash site.
> A user WITH flash, and NO javascript would be able to reach the > homepage of the Flashsite following a link from a google results page.
> As a bonus to the approach, the solution can be engineered in a way > that the plain html, meant for bot indexation, can also serve as a > backup for people without Flash, even if hardly any of those visitors > would be expected.
> Overall, we and our clients who go for the 100% flash sites pretty > much assume all of their target audience will have both Flash and > javascript enabled, though.
Off course, that's part of the package. What SWFAddress adds to this is backbutton support and deeplinking, while using the mod/rewrite trick on top of that adds the SEO. Say someone enters the site from a search result and is redirected to www.mysite.com/#/products/, the div- element that will hold the flash movie will also contain the appropriate html content for the section he's being deeplinked into.
Additionally, we have a method in place to embed flash anyway if SWFObject fails due to javascript being disabled.
The main issue here is basically the mod/rewrite approach that will seperate search engines from normal visitors when entering the site using a URL like www.mysite.com/products.
> SWFObject provides for using html content which gets replaced by the > flash content if the user agent is not javascript enabled.
> So I repeat my question: are those the urls found and available and do > they server html content when javascript is off?
> On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, erik-usmedia wrote:
> > As SWFObject/SWFAddress both rely on javascript to execute, at least > > part of the functionality will be gone for users who don't have > > javascript enabled.
> > However, some fall back would indeed be possible, although definately > > no deeplinking into the flash site.
> > A user WITH flash, and NO javascript would be able to reach the > > homepage of the Flashsite following a link from a google results page.
> > As a bonus to the approach, the solution can be engineered in a way > > that the plain html, meant for bot indexation, can also serve as a > > backup for people without Flash, even if hardly any of those visitors > > would be expected.
> > Overall, we and our clients who go for the 100% flash sites pretty > > much assume all of their target audience will have both Flash and > > javascript enabled, though.
You should check the SWFAddress repository for the latest version of the SEO sample. It no longer relies on bot detection and uses some tricky, but non-sneaky JavaScript redirecting to achieve the same kind of functionality. The technique is tested against Google, Yahoo and MSN and will be released officially very soon.
> Off course, that's part of the package. What SWFAddress adds to this > is backbutton support and deeplinking, while using the mod/rewrite > trick on top of that adds the SEO. Say someone enters the site from a > search result and is redirected towww.mysite.com/#/products/, the div- > element that will hold the flash movie will also contain the > appropriate html content for the section he's being deeplinked into.
> Additionally, we have a method in place to embed flash anyway if > SWFObject fails due to javascript being disabled.
> The main issue here is basically the mod/rewrite approach that will > seperate search engines from normal visitors when entering the site > using a URL likewww.mysite.com/products.
> On Sep 19, 6:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > SWFObject provides for using html content which gets replaced by the > > flash content if the user agent is not javascript enabled.
> > So I repeat my question: are those the urls found and available and do > > they server html content when javascript is off?
> > On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, erik-usmedia wrote:
> > > As SWFObject/SWFAddress both rely on javascript to execute, at least > > > part of the functionality will be gone for users who don't have > > > javascript enabled.
> > > However, some fall back would indeed be possible, although definately > > > no deeplinking into the flash site.
> > > A user WITH flash, and NO javascript would be able to reach the > > > homepage of the Flashsite following a link from a google results page.
> > > As a bonus to the approach, the solution can be engineered in a way > > > that the plain html, meant for bot indexation, can also serve as a > > > backup for people without Flash, even if hardly any of those visitors > > > would be expected.
> > > Overall, we and our clients who go for the 100% flash sites pretty > > > much assume all of their target audience will have both Flash and > > > javascript enabled, though.
Do you have an example where named anchor links, anything after a # have been indexed? Everything I have read suggests that Google ignores and drops any hash values.
To do other wise would require that links within the same page would be separately indexable which would seem to cause serious problems.
Are you sure that it is possible to enter a site from a search result such as you describe?
The only thing left out though is that the URLs in the address bar of one's browser will still contain the hash values.
That is not such a big deal as they are still bookmarkable so the visitor is happy but if someone tries to use one of those addresses to then link to your site, you have a problem.
What is a partial solution to that is putting a "permalink" somewhere on each "page". That is not a foolproof solution as it requires potential linkers to see it and use it but it at least gives people a "real" URL to link to.
> > Say someone enters the site from a > > search result and is redirected towww.mysite.com/#/products/,
> Do you have an example where named anchor links, anything after a # > have been indexed? Everything I have read suggests that Google > ignores and drops any hash values.
> To do other wise would require that links within the same page would > be separately indexable which would seem to cause serious problems.
> Are you sure that it is possible to enter a site from a search result > such as you describe?
> You should check the SWFAddress repository for the latest version of > theSEOsample. It no longer relies on bot detection and uses some > tricky, but non-sneaky JavaScript redirecting to achieve the same kind > of functionality. The technique is tested against Google, Yahoo and > MSN and will be released officially very soon.
> On Sep 19, 8:58 pm, erik-usmedia wrote:
> > Off course, that's part of the package. What SWFAddress adds to this > > is backbutton support and deeplinking, while using the mod/rewrite > > trick on top of that adds theSEO. Say someone enters the site from a > > search result and is redirected towww.mysite.com/#/products/, the div- > > element that will hold the flash movie will also contain the > > appropriate html content for the section he's being deeplinked into.
> > Additionally, we have a method in place to embed flash anyway if > > SWFObject fails due to javascript being disabled.
> > The main issue here is basically the mod/rewrite approach that will > > seperate search engines from normal visitors when entering the site > > using a URL likewww.mysite.com/products.
> > On Sep 19, 6:51 pm, webado wrote:
> > > SWFObject provides for using html content which gets replaced by the > > > flash content if the user agent is not javascript enabled.
> > > So I repeat my question: are those the urls found and available and do > > > they server html content when javascript is off?
> > > On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, erik-usmedia wrote:
> > > > As SWFObject/SWFAddress both rely on javascript to execute, at least > > > > part of the functionality will be gone for users who don't have > > > > javascript enabled.
> > > > However, some fall back would indeed be possible, although definately > > > > no deeplinking into the flash site.
> > > > A user WITH flash, and NO javascript would be able to reach the > > > > homepage of the Flashsite following a link from a google results page.
> > > > As a bonus to the approach, the solution can be engineered in a way > > > > that the plain html, meant for bot indexation, can also serve as a > > > > backup for people without Flash, even if hardly any of those visitors > > > > would be expected.
> > > > Overall, we and our clients who go for the 100% flash sites pretty > > > > much assume all of their target audience will have both Flash and > > > > javascript enabled, though.
> What is a partial solution to that is putting a "permalink" somewhere > on each "page". That is not a foolproof solution as it requires > potential linkers to see it and use it but it at least gives people a > "real" URL to link to.
But since web sites HAVE to be accessible (in the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act) is that feasible? An option to reach alternative navigation has to be available outside the Flash.
i have yet to investigate the new (beta) version of swfAddress, so I'm not 100% on what the exact possibilities are technically speaking. But the approach of this system should allow a sophisticated method to deliver a full-html alternative to websites that 'normal' users would view as 100% flash. Both for search engines as well as for people relying on screenreaders.
The downside is that this will require quite a bit more time to develop, which not many clients will have the budget for. This is something my company as well as many others who like us specialize in Flash are looking into at the moment, and we should see many examples of well executed accessible flash popping up soon. The process of creating such sites just needs to be explored, tested, refined and so on to make it a part of our standard repertoire.
> > What is a partial solution to that is putting a "permalink" somewhere > > on each "page". That is not a foolproof solution as it requires > > potential linkers to see it and use it but it at least gives people a > > "real" URL to link to.
> But since web sites HAVE to be accessible (in the UK, the Disability > Discrimination Act) is that feasible? An option to reach alternative > navigation has to be available outside the Flash.
> I am wondering however, what the community and Google thinks about the > method I'm about to explain to bring an elegant solution to the SEO > challenge for fully dynamic Flash sites:
Howdy,
Sounds like a waste of time and effort.
Take it from an old pro. Flash IS NOT a substitute for being able to build a web site in plain old HTML 3.2. You will spend more time tinkering around trying to get good Flash results than learning how to build a web page in Notepad. You can't build a good automobile with a fancy paint job.
Flash is nice as an animated image accent here and there but should NEVER be used for a whole web page. Much less any of the navigation. I've seen a lot of Flash that would be just as effective as an animated GIF or a Java Script slide show.
> Take it from an old pro. Flash IS NOT a substitute for being able to > build a web site in plain old HTML 3.2. You will spend more time > tinkering around trying to get good Flash results than learning how to > build a web page in Notepad. You can't build a good automobile with a > fancy paint job.
> Flash is nice as an animated image accent here and there but should > NEVER be used for a whole web page. Much less any of the navigation. > I've seen a lot of Flash that would be just as effective as an > animated GIF or a Java Script slide show.
> Take it from the new pro: Flash is definitely able to surpass the > level of slideshows or animated Gifs ;)
> Following your metaphor: We do know how to build the car (be it in > xhtml or flash), and how to paint it!
> But thats not the issue, it's about getting the dealership into the > yellowpages, and making the car safe for blind people to drive as well > xD
> On Oct 9, 1:42 am, Chris Gunn wrote:
> > Howdy,
> > Sounds like a waste of time and effort.
> > Take it from an old pro. Flash IS NOT a substitute for being able to > > build a web site in plain old HTML 3.2. You will spend more time > > tinkering around trying to get good Flash results than learning how to > > build a web page in Notepad. You can't build a good automobile with a > > fancy paint job.
> > Flash is nice as an animated image accent here and there but should > > NEVER be used for a whole web page. Much less any of the navigation. > > I've seen a lot of Flash that would be just as effective as an > > animated GIF or a Java Script slide show.
> > What is a partial solution to that is putting a "permalink" somewhere > > on each "page". That is not a foolproof solution as it requires > > potential linkers to see it and use it but it at least gives people a > > "real" URL to link to.
> But since web sites HAVE to be accessible (in the UK, the Disability > Discrimination Act) is that feasible? An option to reach alternative > navigation has to be available outside the Flash.
How is it not feasible? The situation is, the user needs a true link to the page so that they can then use the link on their site, the question is, where do they get it from?
Copy and paste from the browser address bar or copy and paste from a permalink on the page? What is the difference?
> Take it from the new pro: Flash is definitely able to surpass the > level of slideshows or animated Gifs ;)
Howdy,
I Agree. Flash inserts can be very effective to get a point across. Each media has its place and assets. When any of them are used to boost the designers ego instead of meeting a company's marketing needs, the site starts losing money.
> Following your metaphor: We do know how to build the car (be it in > xhtml or flash), and how to paint it!
The nuts and bolts start with HTML 3.2 and being able to read it like a book. The paint jobs start with anything tacked on top of it.
Afraid I haven't been able to put much time into it recently due to other projects demanding attention.
My progress so far has been is I got SWFAddress 1.1 to work in combination with Mod/rewrite to create SEO, although IE seemed a little buggy so it wasn't ready for live use.
When I will continue my research on the subject, I would check out the new version of SWFAddress from sourceforge (http://sourceforge.net/ svn/?group_id=181584) and go on from there.
If you make any progress on any specific implementation I'm off course very curious :)
> did you find a working solution to this, we just implementedswfaddressone site with several to go.
> Pz
> On Oct 10, 7:52 am, erik-usmedia wrote:
> > Take it from the new pro: Flash is definitely able to surpass the > > level of slideshows or animated Gifs ;)
> > Following your metaphor: We do know how to build the car (be it in > > xhtml or flash), and how to paint it!
> > But thats not the issue, it's about getting the dealership into the > > yellowpages, and making the car safe for blind people to drive as well > > xD
> > On Oct 9, 1:42 am, Chris Gunn wrote:
> > > Howdy,
> > > Sounds like a waste of time and effort.
> > > Take it from an old pro. Flash IS NOT a substitute for being able to > > > build a web site in plain old HTML 3.2. You will spend more time > > > tinkering around trying to get good Flash results than learning how to > > > build a web page in Notepad. You can't build a good automobile with a > > > fancy paint job.
> > > Flash is nice as an animated image accent here and there but should > > > NEVER be used for a whole web page. Much less any of the navigation. > > > I've seen a lot of Flash that would be just as effective as an > > > animated GIF or a Java Script slide show.
