2.4. SWFObject and NoScript tags
Because “alternative content” workarounds for SEO of Flash files
have been historically abused by spammers, it is challenging to
recommend these tactics to optimize your Flash files without a
critical disclaimer.
Both the SWFObject and
NoScript methods were originally
designed to be legitimate, graceful degradation tactics readily
accepted by the search engines as a way to accommodate older browsers
or people with special needs. But many unscrupulous sites have used
the code to trick search engine spiders. In other words, they are used
in such a way that browsers display one thing to users, but display
something completely different to search engine spiders. All of the
major search engines disapprove of such tactics.
Websites using such methods today are often penalized or removed
from search engine indexes altogether. This makes graceful degradation
risky on some level, but if the methods are used clearly within the
boundaries for which they were intended, getting penalized or banned
is highly unlikely.
Intent is an essential element search engines take into
consideration. If your intent is to provide all
users with a positive experience while visiting your site, you should
be fine. If your intent is to game the search engines, all it takes is
one online rival to report your site for spam to incur the wrath of
the search engines.
Google and other search engines do not algorithmically ban sites
for using SWFObject and NoScript tags; it usually requires human
intervention to evoke a penalty or outright ban.
2.4.1. SWFObject
With regard to Flash optimization, SWFObject is the better of the two options
because it is JavaScript code designed specifically for Flash
.swf purposes, and it has been
abused to a lesser extent than the NoScript tag option.
SWFObject is Flash
detection code written in JavaScript that checks whether a browser
has the Flash plug-in. If the browser does have the Flash plug-in,
the .swf file is displayed
secondary to that detection. If the browser does not have the Flash
plug-in or the JavaScript to detect it, the primary, alternative
content contained within <div> files is displayed instead.
The key here is that search engine spiders do not render the
JavaScript. They read the primary content in the <div> tags.
The opportunity for abuse is obvious upon viewing the code.
This small piece of code is placed within the <head> tags:
<script type="text/javascript" src="swfobject.js"></script>
In the body of the text, the code looks something like Figure 3.
Search engine spiders will read text, links, and even alt attributes within the <div> tags, but the browser will not
display them unless the Flash plug-in isn’t installed (about 95% of
browsers now have the plug-in) or JavaScript isn’t available.
Once again, the key to successfully implementing SWFObject is to use it to the letter of
the law; leverage it to mirror the content of your Flash .swf file exactly.
Do not use it to add content, keywords, graphics, or links that are
not contained in the file. Remember, a human being will be making
the call as to whether your use of SWFObject is proper and in accordance with
that search engine’s guidelines. If you design the outcome to
provide the best possible user experience, and your intent is
not to game the search engines, you are
probably OK.
You can download the SWFObject JavaScript free of charge at
http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/. Included
in this download is the flashobject.js file, which is placed in
the same directory as the web pages upon which the corresponding
calling code resides.
2.4.2. NoScript
The NoScript tag has been
abused in “black hat” SEO attempts so frequently that caution should
be taken when using it. Just as SWFObject and DIV tags can be misused for link and
keyword stuffing, so too can the NoScript tag. Certain companies have
promoted the misuse of the NoScript tag widely; consequently there
have been many more problems with their use.
With that being said, conservative and proper use of NoScript tags specifically with Flash
.swf files can be an acceptable
and good way to get content mirrored to a Flash file read by search
engine spiders. As it is with SWFObject and corresponding DIV tags, content must echo that of the
Flash .swf movie exactly. Do
not use them to add content, keywords, graphics, or links that are
not in the movie. Again, it is a human call as to whether a site or
individual page is banned for the use or misuse of NoScript tags.
You use NoScript tags with
Flash .swf files in the
following manner:
<script type="text/javascript" src="YourFlashFile.swf"></script>
Followed at some point afterward by:
<noscript>
<H1>Mirror content in Flash file here.</H1>
<p>Any content within the NoScript tags will be read by the search engine
spiders, including links
http://www.mirroredlink.com, graphics, and corresponding Alt attributes.
</noscript>
For browsers that do not have JavaScript installed or
functioning, content alternatives to JavaScript-required entities
are displayed. So, for use with Flash .swf files, if a browser does not have
JavaScript and therefore cannot display Flash, it displays instead
the content inside the NoScript
tags. This is a legitimate, graceful degradation design. For SEO
purposes, as it is with SWFObject, the search engine spiders do
not render the JavaScript and do read the content contained in the
HTML. Here, it is the content in the NoScript tags.
2.5. Scalable Inman Flash Replacement (sIFR)
sIFR is a technique that uses JavaScript to read in HTML text
and render it in Flash instead. The essential fact to focus on here is
that the method guarantees that the HTML content and the Flash content
are identical. One great use for this is to render headline text in an
anti-aliased font (this is the purpose for which sIFR was designed).
This can provide a great improvement in the presentation of your
site.
At a Search Engine Marketing New England (SEMNE) event in July
2007, Dan Crow, head of Google’s Crawl team, said that as long as this
technique is used in moderation, it is OK. However, extensive use of
sIFR could be interpreted as a poor site quality signal. Since sIFR
was not really designed for large-scale use, such extensive use would
not be wise in any event.
3. JavaScript and AJAX
As we mentioned previously, the search engines cannot see any
content that does not appear immediately in the source code for the web
page. Content and links that are dynamically retrieved in response to a
user action or some other event and then embedded in the page cannot be
seen by the search engines. However, content that is embedded in the
HTML of the page, and JavaScript that is simply used to render it, can
be seen by the search engines. There is also some evidence that Google
follows links implemented in JavaScript, as detailed in the article on
SEOmoz at http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/new-reality-google-follows-links-in-javascript-4930.
AJAX implementations can also be very challenging. The main
challenge is that most implementations render new content on the page,
but the URL does not change. To build AJAX applications that present
indexable content to the search engines, make sure to create new URLs
that point to the various versions of the content, and then make sure
you link to those locations from somewhere on your site.
Use of the NoScript tags to
render alternative content for the benefit of the search engines is
useful in addressing basic JavaScript applications, but less useful with
AJAX, since there may be an infinite (or very large) number of different
types of output from the tool, and it would not be feasible to render
them all within the NoScript
tags.
