As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, it, by itself, should not be a problem.
But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a given page, trouble may result.
Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with Google.
> As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, > it, by itself, should not be a problem.
> But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem > to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough > to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a > given page, trouble may result.
> Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace > spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
> Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus > and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major > reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with > Google.
> Craig
> On Jul 25, 5:54 am, khilley wrote:
> > I'm wondering if I can get clarification on 2 questions I have after > > reading the article "Best Uses of Flash" posted by Mark Berghausen.
> > 1) Does Google consider sIFR cloaking? > > 2) Does Google penalize sites using sIFR?
> > We have heard mixed opinions on this topic, from various sources, and > > are unsure what the official Google position is.
> > For these questions, please assume that sIFR is implemented in the way > > it is intended and not in a grey or black hat manner. > > Thank you! Kristen
Hi Naj, I am referring to this same article you link to. We are wanting to know Google's official position on our 2 questions noted here before implementing sIFR on any of our web sites. We would be using sIFR to simply replace the font face displayed for title tags.
Thank you Craig for your note, it is good to hear that sIFR seems to not have any negative impact in your deployment of it, with regard to Google.
I have read the Google FAQs and Help sections. Thank you.
> > As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, > > it, by itself, should not be a problem.
> > But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem > > to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough > > to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a > > given page, trouble may result.
> > Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace > > spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
> > Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus > > and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major > > reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with > > Google.
> > Craig
> > On Jul 25, 5:54 am, khilley wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if I can get clarification on 2 questions I have after > > > reading the article "Best Uses of Flash" posted by Mark Berghausen.
> > > 1) Does Google consider sIFR cloaking? > > > 2) Does Google penalize sites using sIFR?
> > > We have heard mixed opinions on this topic, from various sources, and > > > are unsure what the official Google position is.
> > > For these questions, please assume that sIFR is implemented in the way > > > it is intended and not in a grey or black hat manner. > > > Thank you! Kristen
First of all, thanks for reading the blog and bringing the discussion to the group. It's neat to see the discussion continue, especially when it's about my post and my pet topic, Flash. :-)
How Flash and search interact is a rather complicated topic, and there have been a few other dialogues about the difficulties of making Flash accessible to users and crawlers. If you're feeling up for some heavy reading after this, you might want to read through Jason's 18-post thread ( http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_... ).
And once again, Craig is giving out great advice (thanks, Craig!)-- Flash replacement that produces the same output text as the replaced element should not cause any problems. And as Craig noted, misleading uses of Flash (redirecting the user, hiding text, or just making scraped text show up prettier) are considered violations of the Google Webmaster Guidelines.
As long as you use a standard sIFR implementation (wherein the Flash objects read and replace the text in certain objects on the page, so no text is added or hidden) and are not engaging in violations of the Google Webmaster Guidelines, then you should not worry that your page will be found to be cloaking or hiding text.
If you do have a reason to believe that your rankings in Google Search are being lowered because of your use of sIFR, I'd definitely encourage you to file a Reconsideration Request at Google Webmaster Central ( http://www.google.com/webmasters/ ). We will be more than happy to have someone investigate.
Thanks for the question--and it's good to see you back in the group! -Bergy
> Hi Naj, I am referring to this same article you link to. We are > wanting to know Google's official position on our 2 questions noted > here before implementing sIFR on any of our web sites. We would be > using sIFR to simply replace the font face displayed for title tags.
> Thank you Craig for your note, it is good to hear that sIFR seems to > not have any negative impact in your deployment of it, with regard to > Google.
> I have read the Google FAQs and Help sections. Thank you.
> > > As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, > > > it, by itself, should not be a problem.
> > > But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem > > > to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough > > > to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a > > > given page, trouble may result.
> > > Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace > > > spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
> > > Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus > > > and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major > > > reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with > > > Google.
> > > Craig
> > > On Jul 25, 5:54 am, khilley wrote:
> > > > I'm wondering if I can get clarification on 2 questions I have after > > > > reading the article "Best Uses of Flash" posted by Mark Berghausen.
> > > > 1) Does Google consider sIFR cloaking? > > > > 2) Does Google penalize sites using sIFR?
> > > > We have heard mixed opinions on this topic, from various sources, and > > > > are unsure what the official Google position is.
> > > > For these questions, please assume that sIFR is implemented in the way > > > > it is intended and not in a grey or black hat manner. > > > > Thank you! Kristen
Hi Bergy, Thank you so much for your response, and I've shared it with my team of web developers!!
We are in the preliminary phase of scoping whether to use sIFR, and were looking to get this level of clarification from a Googler before proceeding. We will absolutely follow the standard sIFR implementation, and are simply wanting to use it to define cool fonts for titles on certain web sites.
I will read the article you suggest, to get a better understanding on Flash and search. I've been following the topic a bit via some of the blogs and forums I read and/or participate in, and am interested to read this thread you mention.
Thank you again for the response, I greatly appreciate your input! Kristen
> First of all, thanks for reading the blog and bringing the discussion > to the group. It's neat to see the discussion continue, especially > when it's about my post and my pet topic, Flash. :-)
> How Flash and search interact is a rather complicated topic, and there > have been a few other dialogues about the difficulties of making Flash > accessible to users and crawlers. If you're feeling up for some heavy > reading after this, you might want to read through Jason's 18-post > thread (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_... > ).
> And once again, Craig is giving out great advice (thanks, Craig!)-- > Flash replacement that produces the same output text as the replaced > element should not cause any problems. And as Craig noted, misleading > uses of Flash (redirecting the user, hiding text, or just making > scraped text show up prettier) are considered violations of the Google > Webmaster Guidelines.
> As long as you use a standard sIFR implementation (wherein the Flash > objects read and replace the text in certain objects on the page, so > no text is added or hidden) and are not engaging in violations of the > Google Webmaster Guidelines, then you should not worry that your page > will be found to be cloaking or hiding text.
> If you do have a reason to believe that your rankings in Google Search > are being lowered because of your use of sIFR, I'd definitely > encourage you to file a Reconsideration Request at Google Webmaster > Central (http://www.google.com/webmasters/). We will be more than > happy to have someone investigate.
> Thanks for the question--and it's good to see you back in the group! > -Bergy
> On Jul 25, 6:35 am, khilley wrote:
> > Hi Naj, I am referring to this same article you link to. We are > > wanting to know Google's official position on our 2 questions noted > > here before implementing sIFR on any of our web sites. We would be > > using sIFR to simply replace the font face displayed for title tags.
> > Thank you Craig for your note, it is good to hear that sIFR seems to > > not have any negative impact in your deployment of it, with regard to > > Google.
> > I have read the Google FAQs and Help sections. Thank you.
> > > > As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, > > > > it, by itself, should not be a problem.
> > > > But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem > > > > to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough > > > > to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a > > > > given page, trouble may result.
> > > > Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace > > > > spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
> > > > Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus > > > > and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major > > > > reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with > > > > Google.
> > > > Craig
> > > > On Jul 25, 5:54 am, khilley wrote:
> > > > > I'm wondering if I can get clarification on 2 questions I have after > > > > > reading the article "Best Uses of Flash" posted by Mark Berghausen.
> > > > > 1) Does Google consider sIFR cloaking? > > > > > 2) Does Google penalize sites using sIFR?
> > > > > We have heard mixed opinions on this topic, from various sources, and > > > > > are unsure what the official Google position is.
> > > > > For these questions, please assume that sIFR is implemented in the way > > > > > it is intended and not in a grey or black hat manner. > > > > > Thank you! Kristen
I also wanted to add, thank you both to Craig and to Naj for helping provide input on my question! It's nice to see such a helpful group here at Google Webmaster Help!
> Hi Bergy, > Thank you so much for your response, and I've shared it with my team > of web developers!!
> We are in the preliminary phase of scoping whether to use sIFR, and > were looking to get this level of clarification from a Googler before > proceeding. We will absolutely follow the standard sIFR > implementation, and are simply wanting to use it to define cool fonts > for titles on certain web sites.
> I will read the article you suggest, to get a better understanding on > Flash and search. I've been following the topic a bit via some of the > blogs and forums I read and/or participate in, and am interested to > read this thread you mention.
> Thank you again for the response, I greatly appreciate your input! > Kristen
> On Jul 25, 9:29 pm, Berghausen wrote:
> > Kristen-
> > First of all, thanks for reading the blog and bringing the discussion > > to the group. It's neat to see the discussion continue, especially > > when it's about my post and my pet topic, Flash. :-)
> > How Flash and search interact is a rather complicated topic, and there > > have been a few other dialogues about the difficulties of making Flash > > accessible to users and crawlers. If you're feeling up for some heavy > > reading after this, you might want to read through Jason's 18-post > > thread (http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_... > > ).
> > And once again, Craig is giving out great advice (thanks, Craig!)-- > > Flash replacement that produces the same output text as the replaced > > element should not cause any problems. And as Craig noted, misleading > > uses of Flash (redirecting the user, hiding text, or just making > > scraped text show up prettier) are considered violations of the Google > > Webmaster Guidelines.
> > As long as you use a standard sIFR implementation (wherein the Flash > > objects read and replace the text in certain objects on the page, so > > no text is added or hidden) and are not engaging in violations of the > > Google Webmaster Guidelines, then you should not worry that your page > > will be found to be cloaking or hiding text.
> > If you do have a reason to believe that your rankings in Google Search > > are being lowered because of your use of sIFR, I'd definitely > > encourage you to file a Reconsideration Request at Google Webmaster > > Central (http://www.google.com/webmasters/). We will be more than > > happy to have someone investigate.
> > Thanks for the question--and it's good to see you back in the group! > > -Bergy
> > On Jul 25, 6:35 am, khilley wrote:
> > > Hi Naj, I am referring to this same article you link to. We are > > > wanting to know Google's official position on our 2 questions noted > > > here before implementing sIFR on any of our web sites. We would be > > > using sIFR to simply replace the font face displayed for title tags.
> > > Thank you Craig for your note, it is good to hear that sIFR seems to > > > not have any negative impact in your deployment of it, with regard to > > > Google.
> > > I have read the Google FAQs and Help sections. Thank you.
> > > > > As long as the Flash includes the exact contents of what it replaces, > > > > > it, by itself, should not be a problem.
> > > > > But at the same time, hiding text for various valid reasons does seem > > > > > to carry some small negative signal that by themselves are not enough > > > > > to cause trouble but if there are too many other negative signals on a > > > > > given page, trouble may result.
> > > > > Also, it probably might not be a good idea to use sIFR to replace > > > > > spammy text with spammy Flash. :-()
> > > > > Generally though, a page combining the use of sIFR, cascading menus > > > > > and expanding text regions, which just about covers all the major > > > > > reasons for hiding text, has not seemed to cause me any trouble with > > > > > Google.
> > > > > Craig
> > > > > On Jul 25, 5:54 am, khilley wrote:
> > > > > > I'm wondering if I can get clarification on 2 questions I have after > > > > > > reading the article "Best Uses of Flash" posted by Mark Berghausen.
> > > > > > 1) Does Google consider sIFR cloaking? > > > > > > 2) Does Google penalize sites using sIFR?
> > > > > > We have heard mixed opinions on this topic, from various sources, and > > > > > > are unsure what the official Google position is.
> > > > > > For these questions, please assume that sIFR is implemented in the way > > > > > > it is intended and not in a grey or black hat manner. > > > > > > Thank you! Kristen
> If you do have a reason to believe that your rankings in Google Search > are being lowered because of your use ofsIFR, I'd definitely > encourage you to file a Reconsideration Request at Google Webmaster > Central (http://www.google.com/webmasters/). We will be more than > happy to have someone investigate.
Hi Mark,
thanks for some interesting information, both in your blog posting and here. Are you able to confirm whether Google considers sIFR-replaced heading content to be as valuable in determining the content of a page as a straight text heading?
We have to date taken the view that while the risk of Google devaluing the heading content is low, the hazard of devaluing that content is great. We really want google to see our H1 as a H1, not a Flash movie.
Google will use the header text you provide although it may compare it to and with the Flash to see that it agrees and isn't being used for cloaking.
You can test this by finding a site that makes use of the sIFR technique and then do a search on the actual header tag contents or whatever contents that are being sIFR'ized.
You should then see the header contents, or whatever you searched on come up in the SERPs, all things being equal and assuming the page is well indexed and well suited for high rankings in the SERPs to begin with, i.e. the site hasn't been banned for some reason or the string you are searching on has too high a level of competition but then you could just include more text in the string you search on.
> > If you do have a reason to believe that your rankings in Google Search > > are being lowered because of your use ofsIFR, I'd definitely > > encourage you to file a Reconsideration Request at Google Webmaster > > Central (http://www.google.com/webmasters/). We will be more than > > happy to have someone investigate.
> Hi Mark,
> thanks for some interesting information, both in your blog posting and > here. Are you able to confirm whether Google considers sIFR-replaced > heading content to be as valuable in determining the content of a page > as a straight text heading?
> We have to date taken the view that while the risk of Google devaluing > the heading content is low, the hazard of devaluing that content is > great. We really want google to see our H1 as a H1, not a Flash movie.
Yes, your experiment would show that a page using sIFR been indexed and that it hasn't been banned or had a severe ranking penalty imposed, but not whether the ranking has been lowered due to usage of sIFR. I'm looking for an optimal solution.
I guess we could conduct a test whereby we observe rankings for heading content for a couple of months, then applied sIFR to said headings, and observed rankings for another couple of months. Even in that case I would be wary of the results, as there would be variables such as file recency and inward links that would be impossible to exclude from the experiment.
I thought it would be a lot quicker and more robust to ask Mr Berghausen and co what they advised :)
> You can test this by finding a site that makes use of thesIFR > technique and then do a search on the actual header tag contents or > whatever contents that are beingsIFR'ized.
> You should then see the header contents, or whatever you searched on > come up in the SERPs, all things being equal and assuming the page is > well indexed and well suited for high rankings in the SERPs to begin > with, i.e. the site hasn't been banned for some reason or the string > you are searching on has too high a level of competition but then you > could just include more text in the string you search on.
