1. Beussery already mentioned this, but "textual elements of all
kinds" is ambiguous. Vector graphics that create human-readable text,
dynamically-loaded textual elements, and other obfuscated textual
elements probably aren't going to be crawled. If you're counting on
Google crawling your textual elements, you may want to play it safe by
making sure that they're elements you can type and edit in the program
you're using to create your flash file, that the elements are actually
stored in the same file you're referencing in the HTML page, and that
the text is not stored in a non-machine-readable format like a vector
graphic.
2. From what I've seen on search results so far, it is generally true
that Google can grab URLs from Flash files and insert them into the
crawling pipeline. However, this leads to two additional concerns:
(a) strange text processing on URLs may not be properly handled by the
Googlebot, and (b) linking data will likely not carry as much nuance
if it comes from the middle of a Flash file as from an HTML page.
After all, Google has been looking at HTML links for a VERY long time--
links in Flash, far less long.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Right: Some javascript, Google loads up fine. Some it doesn't.
The rule of thumb is that the more complex or uncommon the JS, the
less the chance that Google will find your Flash URL. However, I'll
state again, that's just a rule of thumb. If you want your flash
content indexed, have it be a part of a file that's directly
referenced on the page.
4. Bingo. However, you cannot count on this being the case forever.
Google already pulls other URLs out of Flash files... it's probably
just a matter of time before it gets better at quickly determining
whether files are subcontent or separate pages. Don't bank on this
staying the case forever.
Thanks for the great post, abhay.mathur84. This is one of the most
intelligent discussions of the interplay between the new state of
Google's crawl and the commercial use of Flash. This is definitely
worth starring for later review and discussion.
-Bergy
> >What has changed?
> >1. Google can now index the textual content in SWF files of all
> >kinds, including buttons, menus and self-contained Flash websites.
> Not exactly, Google has made some improvements but can't index text
> all content in all SWF files of all kinds and in every case. For
> example, content loaded into SWF files dynamically from another
> source, isn't indexed at all.
> >As mentioned
> >above, Google won’t index content in images and it has problems with
> >JavaScript calls.
> Not exactly, Google supports common JavaScript techniques like those
> used for SWFObject and SWFObject2.
> >Use JavaScript and CSS to find out if the website visitor can
> >parse Flash and then present the CSS DIVs that contain the
> >corresponding content.
> Wait, you just said Google indexes Flash! By adding corresponding
> content to real content in Flash, you've created duplicate content.
> Perhaps why Google doesn't recommend techniques like SWFObject.
> >Use different URLs for different sections of your website. Each
> >set of content should have its own unique URL.
> 1.) Googlebot ignores #anchors in URLs, which you'll need to forward
> the playhead in "the flash file".
> 2.) By creating a different URL for different pages and copying the
> same SWF into each page, you are duplicating content across each page
> as well as running the risk of text contents in the SWF found in each
> "page" not exactly matching content also see by engines in the code of
> "page" where said SWF is housed. Doing this for at all, much less for
> an entire "section" of a site complicates things even more....
> 3.) While duplicate content in Flash may not be penalized, creating
> another version for engines only to have it filtered from results,
> kind of defeats the purpose? In addition to this other "set" of
> content being filtered the technique mentioned also acts to thin
> PageRank as well as keyword relevancy from the anchor text of inbound
> links.
> Either use Flash or don't, either way I'd avoid mixing old and what
> some would call risky techniques for optimizing Flash in Google's new
> Flash environment. Just my two cents, best of luck to you! :)
> On Aug 28, 1:01 am, abhay.mathur84 wrote:
> > A month ago, Google announced that they had improved the way it
> > indexesFlashfiles. Has something changed in Google’s search results
> > in the meantime? Is this change good news for you if you have aFlash
> > site?
> > What has changed?
> > 1. Google can now index the textual content in SWF files of all
> > kinds, including buttons, menus and self-containedFlashwebsites.
> > 2. Google can also discover URLs that appear inFlashfiles and
> > it adds these URLs to the crawling pipeline.
> > What has not changed?
> > 1. Google still doesn’t recognize the text that appears on
> > images. FLV files, such as YouTube videos also won’t be indexed
> > because they don’t contain text.
> > 2. As manyFlashwebsites consist of images and other
> > multimedia elements, the only text that Google finds on these websites
> > might be “Loading”, “Please wait” or “Copyright”.
> > 3. Google also cannot execute some JavaScript types. If your
> > website loads aFlashfile via JavaScript, Google might not be able to
> > find yourFlashfile.
> > 4. In addition, Google cannot attach content from external
> > sources that are loaded byFlashfiles. If yourFlashpage loads an
> > HTML or XML file then these files will be treated as separate
> > documents.
> > Why isFlashstill a problem for search engines?
> > Flashcontent and regular HTML pages are fundamentally different.
> > Just because Google can now index some text fromFlashfiles doesn’t
> > mean thatFlashfiles are now search engine friendly. Here’s why:
> > 1. It’s hard to divide the text into meaningful sections.Flash
> > doesn’t use <h1> or <p> tags to separate different sections of text.
> > It’s hard to tell what’s important and what’s not. Even worse,Flash
> > designers often break down words into their individual letters to
> > create “cool” text effects. That means that search engines cannot
> > index these texts.
> > 2. Usually, the complete content of a website is presented on
> > the same URL. You cannot link to a special part of aFlashwebsite.
> > That means that it is also difficult for search engines to find the
> > relevant section of theFlashsite.
> > 3. In addition, this means thatFlashwebsites don’t get good
> > inbound links to the right pages. MostFlashwebsites only get links
> > to their home page.
> > 4. The structure ofFlashwebsites makes it difficult to get
> > high rankings. ManyFlashfiles are linked from otherFlashfiles and
> > no other websites link to these internalFlashelements. The lack of
> > links from other websites makes it very difficult to get high rankings
> > for these elements.
> > 5.Flashdoesn’t use the basic SEO methods. You won’t find
> > proper link texts, headline tags or even properly optimized title tags
> > in mostFlashsites. That makes it very difficult to get good
> > rankings.
> > 6. MostFlashcontent is still not crawlable. As mentioned
> > above, Google won’t index content in images and it has problems with
> > JavaScript calls.
> > What can you do to improve your rankings if you have aFlashsite?
> > If possible, avoid pureFlashwebsites and useFlashelements only
> > when needed. If you must useFlashon your website, the following tips
> > will help you to get better rankings:
> > Include the text and the links from theFlashfile in an HTML
> > version on the same page.
> > Use JavaScript and CSS to find out if the website visitor can
> > parseFlashand then present the CSS DIVs that contain the
> > corresponding content. Regular website users will see theFlashfile,
> > visitors who cannot parseFlash(for example search engines) will see
> > the HTML version.
> > 1. Use CSS and create a layer with your regular HTML content
> > and then position another layer with theFlashcontent above the HTML
> > layer so that your website visitors only see theFlashcontent. Note
> > that search engines might misinterpret this method as a spamming
> > attempt.
> > Use different URLs for different sections of your website. Each
> > set of content should have its own unique URL.
> > Flashhas not been designed for search engines and it is extremely
> > difficult to get high rankings with pureFlashsites. Using regular
> > optimized web pages is the best way to get in Google’s top 10 results.
|
