You could make your alternative content for swfobject to be a xml parser out of php. That's what I did for my mobile version of my site.
Nathan Mynarcik Interactive Web Developer nat...@mynarcik.com 254.749.2525 www.mynarcik.com -----Original Message----- From: artur <ar...@artur.com> Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:16:40 To: flashcoders<flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com> Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] SEO + Flash = any great strategies? thanks for all this in-depth response. what im looking for specifically is a way to have google crawl through and index my dynamic content. from my tests so far, it hasnt done that at all. *Artur Maklyarevsky | CEO * ------------------------ folio: *design2dev.com* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/design2dev> voice: 646.797.3320 info : *linkedIN <http://www.linkedin.com/in/design2dev>* skype: Skype Me! <callto://artur_Design2Dev> On 2/3/2010 8:46 PM, raymondp...@cox.net wrote: > Artur, > > I did some research this morning to unearth the latest best practices. I'll > share the results of my findings. > > I found some information that suggests that Google is capable of 1) indexing > Flash content embedded via SWFObject and 2) cataloging content linked via > URLs with hash marks. However, the majority view seems to be that the best > way to control what Google catalogs is to provide distinct page links that do > not use the hash mark. > > Google announced in mid 2008 that it could crawl Flash: "Now that we've > launched our Flash indexing algorithm, web designers can expect improved > visibility of their published Flash content, and you can expect to see better > search results and snippets" ("Google learns to crawl Flash," > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/google-learns-to-crawl-flash.html, > June 30, 2008). That same day, Google asserted, "We've improved our ability > to index textual content in SWF files of all kinds. This includes Flash > "gadgets" such as buttons or menus, self-contained Flash websites, and > everything in between" ("Improved Flash indexing", > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html, > June 30, 2008). A year later, Google asserted in the blog post "Flash > indexing with external resource loading" > (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/06/flash-indexing-with-external-resource.html, > June 18, 2009) that they "just added external resource loading to ou! r Flash indexing capabilities," meaning that "when a SWF file loads content from some other file—whether it's text, HTML, XML, another SWF, etc.—we can index this external content too, and associate it with the parent SWF file and any documents that embed it." > > Regarding Google's capacity to see links with hash marks as unique URLS, I > found an article in betanews from September 29, 2009 titled "Google vs. Yahoo > vs. Bing on 'deep linking:' Does it make any difference?" > (http://www.betanews.com/article/Google-vs-Yahoo-vs-Bing-on-deep-linking-Does-it-make-any-difference/1254260245) > in which the author notes, "This week, all three of the world's top general > search engines touted the addition of deep links to their search results, > although Google has been actively experimenting with deep links since this > time last year. The basic premise is this: For Web pages that have named > anchors above selected subsections -- for example,<A NAME="Details"> -- the > search engine is capable of generating subheadings in its search results that > link users directly to those subsections, or at least to subsections whose > titles imply they may have some bearing upon the query." > > With all that noted, I find it telling that Adobe is still pushing for basic > URLs to page content rather than relying on Google to crawl hash marks or SWF > content directly. A little over a month ago, in the "Deep Links and Dynamic > Content" video which is part of the Adobe Developer Connection article "Adobe > Flash and search engine optimization (SEO): Techniques, issues, and > strategies" (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/seo/articles/flash_seo_videos.html, > December 14, 2009), Damien Bianchi specifically asserts that "Google does not > index anything past the hash mark in the deep linking URL" and recommends > providing basic URLs for spider consumption. > > Justin Everett-Church, senior product manager for designer/developer > relations for Flash at Adobe, clearly articulated why we can't rely on > Google's ability to crawl SWF content in an audio interview on December 9, > 2009. In this interview, Everett-Church noted, "Flash content or SWFs have > been actually accessible to search engines for a while. In previous kind of > incarnations, it's been able to decompile SWF and give all the strings out > there. Unfortunately, that's not really getting out what an end user sees, > what an end user experiences. So, we've had to come up with better solutions > that give a more full description of the text links that are going on inside > the SWF, how the end user actually is interacting with representing the > hierarchy of the SWF. Without that full solution that we've implemented in > the last couple of years, really, Flash search ability was less than it > should be, but that's obviously why we did the work." > > While there may come a day when we can structure our ActionScript code to > precisely control what Google sees, for the time-being the approach outlined > by Michael Wyszomierski and Greg Grothaus in an article titled "A Spider's > View of Web 2.0" > (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/11/spiders-view-of-web-20.html, > Tuesday, November 6, 2007) seems to offer the best hope for insuring Google > sees our sites the way our clients and visitors see our sites. > > Bottom line: provide plain links to HTML pages and redirect Flash-enabled > user agents that visit those pages to a link with a hash that will allow > leveraging swfaddress to deep-link to the proper Flash content. > > I intend to keep an eye on the Adobe Search Engine Optimization Technology > Center at http://www.adobe.com/devnet/seo/ to stay on top of what Adobe > recommends on this front. > > Thanks, > Raymond Simmons > Neon Sky Creative Media, Inc. > > ---- artur<ar...@artur.com> wrote: > >> was wondering if there are any bulletproof SEO solutions out there >> besides doing a mod re-write for crawlers. >> >> does google still penalize for this? >> >> thanks >> >> artur >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> > > > _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
