Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Chris Dimmock]

Tom Livingston wrote:
>>Flash actually is searchable. There's even a
>>search SDK for search engines. It's also
>>accessible, with tab order/indexing, etc.

Search SDK was designed as a tool for search engines themselves to
extract data from Flash (up to V6) files - the key issue, as outlined
below, is "When a search engine deploys this SDK". It was lauched back
in 2002.

"The Macromedia Flash Search Engine SDK 1.0 provides search engines
with the means to search and index Macromedia Flash (SWF) movies. The
swf2html utility used by the SDK extracts text and links from a
Macromedia Flash SWF file, and outputs it to stdout or to an HTML
document. When a search engine deploys this SDK, users can locate
relevant Flash content when searching by keyword or file type."
 
Only one SE I know of ever deployed SDK - back in 2002. And that
search engine got gobbled up by one of the larger ones.

"The Macromedia Flash Search Engine SDK is designed for search engine
application engineering teams. Users of the SDK can add Flash file
decompression, parsing, and indexing features to their server-based
search applications."

http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/features/flash/player.html

Macromedia's perception of accessibility is slightly different to many
other peoples..

Make movies and put them on the internet if you want - but don't kid
yourself that a text based indexing spider is interested in indexing
or ranking them - unless you have substantial inbound links - and even
then you'll only get ranked for one or two search phrases.

Chris
http://www.cogentis.com.au

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:17:31 +0100, Kornel Lesinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:35:50 +0100, Tom Livingston
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >> I'm not flaming you - but have you seen this:
> >>
> >> Why Google's indexing of swfs is worthless
> >> http://www.quasimondo.com/archives/000404.php
> >
> > Same old same old. If you read the comments, one person states that he
> > has a Flash-based forum that is entirely indexed by Google.
> 
> Have you seen it? It's not Flash that gets indexed.
> He outputs all content as HTML and puts Flash on top of it.
> 
> --
> regards, Kornel Lesiński
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
>
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Kornel Lesinski]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:35:50 +0100, Tom Livingston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not flaming you - but have you seen this:
Why Google's indexing of swfs is worthless
http://www.quasimondo.com/archives/000404.php
Same old same old. If you read the comments, one person states that he  
has a Flash-based forum that is entirely indexed by Google.
Have you seen it? It's not Flash that gets indexed.
He outputs all content as HTML and puts Flash on top of it.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Tom Livingston]

I'm not flaming you - but have you seen this:
Why Google's indexing of swfs is worthless
http://www.quasimondo.com/archives/000404.php

Same old same old. If you read the comments, one person states that 
he has a Flash-based forum that is entirely indexed by Google.

--
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Mike Foskett]

It still comes down to the legalities.
If Google receive a complaint, and it appears justifiable, then it is acted 
upon in "good faith".
There is a document trail which is admissible as proof.

If a googlebot, on the other hand, automatically bans a site for what it thinks 
is wrong.
Then Google are solely responsible, and could be deemed as acting upon impulse 
rather than on due consideration.
A point lawyers would love to take to court.

But again this is only opinion.
Maybe the question should've been "Have you heard of a site banned, barred or 
blacklisted without a complaint?"

regards

mike 2k:)2


 
 Mike Foskett 
 Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant
 Multimedia Publishing and Production 
 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) 
 Milburn Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ 
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Tel:  02476 416994  Ext 3342 [Tuesday - Thursday]
 Fax: 02476 411410 
 www.becta.org.uk

 




-Original Message-
From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 31 March 2005 12:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hidden Content


On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:46:23 +0100, Mike Foskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't actually believe that CSS styling will make any difference to 
> search engine ranking. These robots spend enough time trawling through 
> the HTML content. It would be time wasted to cross reference the 
> content against: visibility, display, colours used, z-index and 
> positioning.

You can see what search engines request by looking at your log files. They've 
never requested my css files. However, I read somewhere a Google staff member 
said something like "we reserve the right to index css files or not" which 
means they may start in the future.

> Does anyone actually know of a page barred, blacklisted or banned by 
> Google? I somehow doubt they ever do.

They do ban sites - it happened to one of my clients (although nothing to do 
with css) and it took about eight months of campaigning to get the site 
included again. However, the biggest risk is your competitors
- if I see a site spamming a search engine I report it. Many people do the 
same, and there *have* been cases of the engines taking action.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**




**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Ben Hamilton]

Google do remove pages from their index. Current case in point is WordPress.
Andre Torrez  was the first to note that links 
to the articles (168,000 of them!) arewere hidden on the 
Wordpress homepage using negative positioning with CSS.

See http://www.waxy.org/archive/2005/03/30/wordpres.shtml for more.
Ben.
Kay Smoljak wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:46:23 +0100, Mike Foskett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

I don't actually believe that CSS styling will make any difference to search engine ranking.
These robots spend enough time trawling through the HTML content.
It would be time wasted to cross reference the content against: visibility, display, colours used, z-index and positioning.
   

You can see what search engines request by looking at your log files.
They've never requested my css files. However, I read somewhere a
Google staff member said something like "we reserve the right to index
css files or not" which means they may start in the future.
 

Does anyone actually know of a page barred, blacklisted or banned by Google?
I somehow doubt they ever do.
   

They do ban sites - it happened to one of my clients (although nothing
to do with css) and it took about eight months of campaigning to get
the site included again. However, the biggest risk is your competitors
- if I see a site spamming a search engine I report it. Many people do
the same, and there *have* been cases of the engines taking action.
 


--
Ben Hamilton
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hamilton.id.au/?:-) 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Kay Smoljak]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:46:23 +0100, Mike Foskett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't actually believe that CSS styling will make any difference to search 
> engine ranking.
> These robots spend enough time trawling through the HTML content.
> It would be time wasted to cross reference the content against: visibility, 
> display, colours used, z-index and positioning.

You can see what search engines request by looking at your log files.
They've never requested my css files. However, I read somewhere a
Google staff member said something like "we reserve the right to index
css files or not" which means they may start in the future.

> Does anyone actually know of a page barred, blacklisted or banned by Google?
> I somehow doubt they ever do.

They do ban sites - it happened to one of my clients (although nothing
to do with css) and it took about eight months of campaigning to get
the site included again. However, the biggest risk is your competitors
- if I see a site spamming a search engine I report it. Many people do
the same, and there *have* been cases of the engines taking action.

-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Mike Foskett]

Hi all,

I don't actually believe that CSS styling will make any difference to search 
engine ranking.
These robots spend enough time trawling through the HTML content.
It would be time wasted to cross reference the content against: visibility, 
display, colours used, z-index and positioning.

I recently thought I had a holding page barred for unintentional content 
stuffing / hiding.
http://www.senuik.com/ 
On asking Google it turns out it wasn't, just ranked low (lack of links I 
presume) appearing at 20 and 27.

The 'hiding' methods used were colour and positioning.
The intent was for styled text to display when Flash wasn't available 
(accessibility).

My point is if this page wasn't barred then I think it incredibly unlikely that 
other hiding techniques would be.

Does anyone actually know of a page barred, blacklisted or banned by Google?
I somehow doubt they ever do. 
Something to do with possible litigation if they are incorrect in their 
analysis?

These are just my thoughts on the matter and are in no way conclusive.



mike 2k:)2


 
 Mike Foskett 
 Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant
 Multimedia Publishing and Production 
 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) 
 Milburn Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ 
 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Tel:  02476 416994  Ext 3342 [Tuesday - Thursday]
 Fax: 02476 411410 
 www.becta.org.uk

 




-Original Message-
From: Tom Livingston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 30 March 2005 19:56
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hidden Content


>So you're using one practice to compensate for another bad practice...
>
>
>If your site is entirely in Flash - well, too bad. It shouldn't be.

Well.

Flash actually is searchable. There's even a 
search SDK for search engines. It's also 
accessible, with tab order/indexing, etc.

If your site is entirely Flash, it _is_ a good 
idea to have an (X)HTML-based alternative for 
those who don't have, or won't install, the 
plug-in (the number of which is declining daily). 
If this is the case, a link to it (like in the 
footer) will allow even better spidering by 
search engines.

2¢ deposited...

-- 
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**




**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Ben - StraightForward]

As stated by Jennifer the possible repercussion is the chance of being
blacklisted.

I think this technique would be regarded in the same vein as using small
text or text which is the same colour as the page background. Don't do it.

p.s. Some search engines do index flash content. ref:
http://www.netmechanic.com/news/vol6/promo_no12.htm

(Sorry if this is off the core WSG topic)

- 1st reply -

You could get away with it and you could be blacklisted from being listed at
all. Personally, I'd rather go about it correctly than risk being
blacklisted.


- Original Message -

> Hi,
>
> What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: none
> with content meant strictly for search engines.
> ie.
> div#searchInfo{
> display: none;
> }
>
>
> 
> blah
> blah
> 
>
>
>
> This was proposed as a solution to having an index page/home page
> populated with dynamic (FLASH) content that is not searchable by spiders.
>
>
>
> CK
> __
> "Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
> willing is not enough, you must do."
> ---Bruce Lee
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
>

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/2005

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Kay Smoljak]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:56:04 -0500, Tom Livingston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Flash actually is searchable. 

I'm not flaming you - but have you seen this:

Why Google's indexing of swfs is worthless
http://www.quasimondo.com/archives/000404.php


-- 
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[This Was Not My Idea]

[Kornel Lesinski]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:15:09 +0100, designer  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I think there has been a misunderstanding. This was asked of me by the
client as an alternative for:
add alternative content
(images, text) inside  element.
I had no idea this would be considered cheating, and posted the
question. Why and where can I read about this seemingly dubious
practice?
Whilst I am aware that this is considered bad practice (and I've never  
done it - ever!) it seems to me that it ought  to be GOOD  
practice,if used properly.
Properly is by providing real, usable alternative inside  element.
Keyword-stuffed entry page is not helpful. It's not an alternative to
flash-based site and if you have js and css capable browser with flash  
disabled,
such page will be completly useless to you.

Flash, as a technology, has some accessibility options, but Macromedia  
Flash
plugin doesn't seem to offer any accessibllity and IMHO is even far from
being usable (I can't even open links in new window,
"back" doesn't work as expected, etc., etc.)

--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[FLASH SDK]

[Kornel Lesinski]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:09:59 +0100, Tom Livingston  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From the MM site:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/download/search_engine/
  I _think_ it is literally _for search engines_ as in the Google devs  
would use/implement it. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. My  
point to posting is that it _is_ possible to index a Flash site.
and Google indexes Flash, but (probably) since it's unable to point you
to exact place ("page") inside it - it doesn't return Flash files
in normal search results.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[FLASH SDK]

[Tom Livingston]

Hi,
Thanks for your enlightened reply. The right 
tool for the job, is my thought. Developing on 
the MAC OS 10 side has a gap with the search 
SDK. Any suggestions, as google returned null.
From the MM site:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/download/search_engine/
 I _think_ it is literally _for search engines_ 
as in the Google devs would use/implement it. 
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. My 
point to posting is that it _is_ possible to 
index a Flash site.

another 2¢ deposit...
--
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[FLASH SDK]

[Chris Kennon]

Hi,
Thanks for your enlightened reply. The right tool for the job, is my 
thought. Developing on the MAC OS 10 side has a gap with the search 
SDK. Any suggestions, as google returned null.

On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, at 10:56  AM, Tom Livingston wrote:
Well.
Flash actually is searchable. There's even a search SDK for search 
engines. It's also accessible, with tab order/indexing, etc.

CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Peter J. Farrell]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Strictly for search engines? Actually, non-flash content would be most 
valuable for accessibility reasons to all users which don't have, or 
can't use, flash content. And there's the rub: most screenreaders 
don't see any content that has been hidden via display:none

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ScreenreaderVisibility
Check out the Google Webmaster guidelines:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
"Hidden" text probably makes google think you are doing some sort of 
"spam" site.  Googlebot basically sees what Lynx sees.

--
Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing
blog:: http://blog.maestropublishing.com
email   :: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not a computer nerd; merely a techno-weenie.
--
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Ben Curtis]

What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: 
none with content meant strictly for search engines.
Strictly for search engines? Actually, non-flash content would be most 
valuable for accessibility reasons to all users which don't have, or 
can't use, flash content. And there's the rub: most screenreaders 
don't see any content that has been hidden via display:none

I've got a site that uses javascript to deliver enhanced content, 
including Flash. The same javascript writes out the display:none; 
declaration for the non-Flash content (which is identical to the Flash 
content -- in fact, the Flash pulls its content from the HTML). I 
figured this was fairly foolproof, but I'm not 100% certain.

Any comments on the general theory? (The particular implementation, 
actually, leaves something to be desired...)

--
Ben Curtis : webwright
bivia : a personal web studio
http://www.bivia.com
v: (818) 507-6613

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[This Was Not My Idea]

[designer]

Hi Chris,

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Kennon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[This Was Not My Idea]


> Hi,
>
> I think there has been a misunderstanding. This was asked of me by the
> client as an alternative for:
>
> add alternative content
> (images, text) inside  element.
>
>
> I had no idea this would be considered cheating, and posted the
> question. Why and where can I read about this seemingly dubious
> practice?
>

Whilst I am aware that this is considered bad practice (and I've never done
it - ever!) it seems to me that it ought  to be GOOD practice, if
used properly.  What on earth can be wrong with helping (yes, helping, not
cheating) spiders to get a resume of your site easily. Isn't that what they
want? It's a bit like the blurb on the inside cover of a book jacket. When
the jacket is removed, the contents are harder to establish.

Sometimes I think this web design game is more like a (neurotic) jigsaw
puzzle than an intelligent occupation :-)

Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Chris Kennon wrote:
What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: none 
with content meant strictly for search engines.
Strictly for search engines? Actually, non-flash content would be most 
valuable for accessibility reasons to all users which don't have, or 
can't use, flash content. And there's the rub: most screenreaders don't 
see any content that has been hidden via display:none

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ScreenreaderVisibility
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Tom Livingston]

So you're using one practice to compensate for another bad practice...
If your site is entirely in Flash - well, too bad. It shouldn't be.
Well.
Flash actually is searchable. There's even a 
search SDK for search engines. It's also 
accessible, with tab order/indexing, etc.

If your site is entirely Flash, it _is_ a good 
idea to have an (X)HTML-based alternative for 
those who don't have, or won't install, the 
plug-in (the number of which is declining daily). 
If this is the case, a link to it (like in the 
footer) will allow even better spidering by 
search engines.

2¢ deposited...
--
-
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Carol Doersom]

Is it acceptable to use display:none to hide text from all browsers but 
NN4?

Because of the layout of one of my site's pages, it makes no sense as it 
degrades unless I add an explanitory  and  that appear only in 
NN4. I have them positioned way off screen [.ns4 and .special], but 
intend to change those items to display:none.

Will the search engines distinguish between those instances and the use 
of display:none described below? Or am I better off leaving things the 
way they are?

Thanks,  Carol
http://www.blinn.edu/sbdc
http://www.blinn.edu/sbdc/index_css.css

Jennifer Dureja wrote:
You could get away with it and you could be blacklisted from being 
listed at all. Personally, I'd rather go about it correctly than risk 
being blacklisted.

- Original Message - From: "Chris Kennon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: 
none with content meant strictly for search engines.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content[This Was Not My Idea]

[Chris Kennon]

Hi,
I think there has been a misunderstanding. This was asked of me by the 
client as an alternative for:

add alternative content
(images, text) inside  element.
I had no idea this would be considered cheating, and posted the 
question. Why and where can I read about this seemingly dubious 
practice?

On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, at 09:34  AM, Jennifer Dureja wrote:
You could get away with it and you could be blacklisted from being 
listed at all. Personally, I'd rather go about it correctly than risk 
being blacklisted.

- Original Message - From: "Chris Kennon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: [WSG] Hidden Content

Hi,
What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: 
none with content meant strictly for search engines.
ie.
div#searchInfo{
display: none;
}


blah
blah


This was proposed as a solution to having an index page/home page 
populated with dynamic (FLASH) content that is not searchable by 
spiders.


CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

"The true measure of ignorance
is thinking intelligence is the
solution to everything."
-ck

Chris Kennon
Principal
ckimedia (www.ckimedia.com)
e-mail: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
blog: (http://thebardwire.ckimedia.com/)
ph: (619)429-3258
fax: (619)429-3258
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Kornel Lesinski]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:18:37 +0100, Chris Kennon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: none  
with content meant strictly for search engines.
There is a chance that search engines discover that, consider it
cheating and lower ranking of your site.
This was proposed as a solution to having an index page/home page  
populated with dynamic (FLASH) content that is not searchable by spiders.
So you're using one practice to compensate for another bad practice...
If your site is entirely in Flash - well, too bad. It shouldn't be.
If you have some "multimedia" object on your site - add alternative content
(images, text) inside  element.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Mike Pepper]

Chris Kennon wrote:

> What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: none
> with content meant strictly for search engines.

If you're lucky your page will simply be demoted in the SERPs when you're
sussed; if you're unlucky your entire site will be blackballed from Google;
if there's any justice, your client will sue you for clause 2. ;o)

Cheers,

Mike

Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com

Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.org

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Hidden Content

[Jennifer Dureja]

You could get away with it and you could be blacklisted from being listed at 
all. Personally, I'd rather go about it correctly than risk being 
blacklisted.

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Kennon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: [WSG] Hidden Content


Hi,
What is the repercussion, if any, of having a div set to display: none 
with content meant strictly for search engines.
ie.
div#searchInfo{
display: none;
}


blah
blah


This was proposed as a solution to having an index page/home page 
populated with dynamic (FLASH) content that is not searchable by spiders.


CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**