the links that get served up to the bots have no #. and with mod_rewrite a
deep link like yoursite.com/section/subsection/ can tell your flash exactly
what it should be doing. when a user navigates from there then you'll see a
#, google never will though.
On 21 April 2010 13:50, allandt bik-ellio
does google still ignore the fragment identifiers used in swfaddress urls?
if so do you do any .htaccess redirecting to get around this as otherwise,
even with a set of links in your no flash div, you'll still only end up with
a set of links into the index
a
On 21 April 2010 01:21, tom rhodes wr
google bots follow links. like i said before look at the swfaddress SEO
stuff to get started. as long as what google finds at
yoursite.com/section/is the same content you deliver in your flash
when you go directly to
yoursite.com/section/ then there is no foul play going on.
it's not doubling up e
On 20/04/2010 22:51, Dave Watts wrote:
In the case that Flash is driven by dynamic content dependent on user
interaction, I don't see how such a criteria of "similar content" can
reasonably be applied.
Most web applications that I work on, that have HTML interfaces, also
have dynamic conte
> In the case that Flash is driven by dynamic content dependent on user
> interaction, I don't see how such a criteria of "similar content" can
> reasonably be applied.
Most web applications that I work on, that have HTML interfaces, also
have dynamic content. Presumably, you'd have the same dynam
On 20/04/2010 21:37, Dave Watts wrote:
Isn't that kind of thing considered "unfair" play and penalized by search
engines if discovered?
It depends on how it's done, exactly. If you have very similar content
within Flash and within the alternative HTML you serve, it's not
considered "cloaki
> Isn't that kind of thing considered "unfair" play and penalized by search
> engines if discovered?
It depends on how it's done, exactly. If you have very similar content
within Flash and within the alternative HTML you serve, it's not
considered "cloaking":
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13530_1-9748
2010 14:42:21
To: Flash Coders List
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Flash & Google
as long as what you serve to the bots and as no flash content isn't
different to what gets read by your flash i think it's cool...
On 20 April 2010 14:29, Juan Pablo Califano wrote:
> Isn
as long as what you serve to the bots and as no flash content isn't
different to what gets read by your flash i think it's cool...
On 20 April 2010 14:29, Juan Pablo Califano wrote:
> Isn't that kind of thing considered "unfair" play and penalized by search
> engines if discovered?
> Cheers
> J
Isn't that kind of thing considered "unfair" play and penalized by search
engines if discovered?
Cheers
Juan Pablo Califano
2010/4/20 tom rhodes
> use some server side script to serve up your site, check to see in the
> headers sent to the server if the request coems from a bot or from a
> browse
use some server side script to serve up your site, check to see in the
headers sent to the server if the request coems from a bot or from a
browser, if from a bot, serve up your xml, if from a browser server up your
site.
have a google for "swfaddress SEO"
On 20 April 2010 11:52, Paul Andrews
Hi Paul,
Your best bet is to use something like SwfObject to write the flash in
JavaScript, while serving indexable content to Google. That can be just some
static text, or dynamically read content from the xml files. A fringe benefit
of that is the ability to serve alternate content to browser
12 matches
Mail list logo
