Hey all,

My idea for Flash optimization is to basically have a backup html version of the site that is the basic link structure and the same text content as is in the Flash Website. However on each page of the html site will have a Flash tester (if the flash_test.swf opens then the user gets redirected to the flash website), that redirects the user if they have flash.

Would this work for google optimization purposes or would the redirect just through the search spider off?

Any advice you could give me would be great!

Thanks,
Anders

[ Message was edited by: digilan2005 05/28/2005 08:31 am ]


[ Message was edited by: digilan2005 05/28/2005 09:53 am ]


[ Message was edited by: bhartzer 06/30/2005 02:57 pm ]

Since you're making 2 copies of your pages already why not have a "flash" entrance and an "html" entrance and give them the choice.

I hate flash - I always choose the html site when given a choice.

Um, hmmm.... why would I not just have a intro choice page. I design for usability and having one extra page does nothing but bad things in terms of usability.

I strongly advicate Flash for the future of the web. If designed properly a Flash site is actually much faster and easier to use than an html site. Think about it, you can just load parts of the page instead of having the whole page reload when you click to a specific page within the site.

Anyways, thanks for you input... Still if anyone has some knowledge that could help me out it would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Anders

There is no one size which fits all in the SEO line too. There are many techniques to serve the Flash pages to the human visitors while serving basic HTML versions to older browsers and robots.

A few years back, there was this browser compatibility issue dogging us which made many of the webmasters to write elaborate codes to sniff out the type of browser the visitor uses and then send appropriate pages optimized for that browser.

Sometimes the sniffing code lapsed into a loop which kept redirecting from one version to the other. Same way any technique to sniff the capabilities of the browser must take into consideration all suitable scenarios.

As Flash moves more towards a dynamic structure, I believe you'll see Flash as more of an interface accessing all its content from external sources. I agree that, when used to support the actual content, Flash can sometimes surpass html in some areas.

>> If designed properly a Flash site is actually much faster <<

I see little evidence of that, but the main reason to NOT use Flash is that Flash sites are not well indexed by search engines and they rank poorly. Additionally a very large number of people do not have Flash enabled in their browser, so you reduce your audience.

I appreciate all your comments but I feel I have to defend Flash a bit so here goes...

Things are changing... flash sites are starting to get indexed into the major search engines. It seems that the search engine companies are starting to realize that there is some valuable content found in Flash pages. My intuition is that the search engines will evolve to eventually index a Flash page as well as a html page. Seach engine companies like Google strive rank pages based on content and Flash just gives you a more interactive and entertaining way of viewing content.
Flash is the future, whether you html peeps realize it or not. And guess what, you know Jakob Nielson the guy that starting the Flash beating with his famous article, 'Flash 99% bad', well he's currently working with Macromedia to improve any usability issues and help form the future of Flash.

>> Additionally a very large number of people do not have Flash enabled in their browser, so you reduce your audience.

Huh? The latest stats claim 90% of all browsers in US and Europe have Flash 7 installed. And 73% of users purport that they have broadband access.

Cheers,
Anders

So, let's see, 10% of net users adds up to tens of millions of people that will simply be unable to access your site..... like I said: "a very large number of people".

The move towards dynamic media is here. Why not use it to support existing content. I believe most of the "bad" Flash sites use Flash extensively because they really have nothing else.

>> The move towards dynamic media is here. Why not use it to support existing content. I believe most of the "bad" Flash sites use Flash extensively because they really have nothing else. <<


Replace:

"nothing else"

with

"no clue"

and I'll go along with your argument.

Flash is very powerful when aligned correctly with the site, but if your business relys on natural search engine traffic as opposed to direct url's or pay-per-click, stick with static pages for the moment.

It's all very well being a pioneer of flash, but if the site then runs the risk of not being indexed "for the time being" you will loose potential customers.

I personally think its best to wait & see and to stick with what you know will work on search engines for the moment unless you can afford to make the assumption that all search engines will have the ability to recognise flash when your site is up and running

Flash renders some really nice graphics and can present a powerful marketing message. But currently the search engines still have a problem indexing them as a whole page.

You're stuck with just a title, meta-tags (if they are worth anything anymore), and null content. If your competition has good text content, you'll have to spend money on buying PPC, or on a huge volume of links.

I've seen sites with a Flash for a top banner and for a few more graphics. They still delivered a strong marketing message and the text element allowed for good search optimization.

I'm sure that the designers still made an extra kick for the embedded Flash enhancements.

Just a dash of Flash!

...designers still made an extra kick for the embedded Flash enhancements...

Sure. There are the unscrupulous designers that will "recommend" Flash and charge extra for those elements when they really don't need it.

Can you afford to lose 10% of your visitors? ...related story.

Hey,

I'm always wary about using anything that might be deemed a bait and switch technique.

Haven't tried this but maybe you could make use of Flash MX's accessibility features. You should be able to offer text alternatives of your Flash content.

It would be cool to test this to see if Google can read it... Last I heard, Google was capable of following links in Flash but not able to read content.

I'm a big fan of the combined approach though. Flash elements on a page really pack a punch intermingled with HTML text.

From an accessibility/usability angle Flash can be a real pain, there are many issues with it that are too numerous to go into here.
As a development house we use flash only when it's appropriate.
Flash does have it's place in interactive media and should be used as such especially in good design work.

Now as for search engine rankings, the jury is still out on the best-way-forward.
Quite recently we were called in for some red project management that was to turn around a complete e-commerce store that was built in flash, beautiful site designed by a reputable artist and designer for a high end fashionable luxury store. The problem is that it couldn't be read by any search engines. The entire site was built in one frame with a store included. The site owners did not want to part with their beautiful site but wanted it to rank.

Our solution was to encapsulate the entire site in an XHTML shell, table-less (DIVS instead) and add new pages with resourceful content based around a particular brand and how best to wear it and why it would make excellent luxury gifts etc.

It worked well and is now beginning to make strong headway through the search engine results.

Bottom line here, if this is a new site I would certainly think strongly about the way you will implement flash. If it's not needed don’t use it. If you can develop high quality moveable gifs then do so instead.

On any new site - usability should play a factor and try and get the site as accessible as possible. If you don't then you are locking out a large section of the market.

I like Flash, but, I like money more. The costs involved in producing a flash site alongside an html site are not attractive to people like me that simply want to get or stay rich.

And, the problems of indexing a Flash site and consequences for sales, again, means more potential losses.

The if you need to update your site, you effectively need to do it twice...

Worst of all, as these posts make clear, most Flash designers are on ego trips and ego trips, based on experience, can be expensive. I don't mind people going on ego trips and in a sort of sentimental way it's good to see them think highly of themselves... I'm just not paying for it.

Karl Hochstapler

I'm not a fan of the alternate site production as well. A combination of seo tactics (to get the potential client to the site) and dynamic media (to effectively communicate your message) provides a much more effective marketing campaign.