I was told this same information a couple months ago by a Google VP and engineer. Just keep the user experience in mind, that¹s not to say there are those out there google bombing and trying to beat the system.
Mike Weiland ----------------- Mike Weiland Aspen Tree Media (877)659-1652 | FAX: (512)828-7105 http://www.AspenTreeMedia.com http://www.CertificateCreator.com - Create & Print Awards and Certificates On 12/17/06 12:24 AM, "Rich Rodecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > AND, re: the potential problem that Google punishes websites which in >> > whatever way tweak the display of the indexed data (for example by >> > adding a Flex UI layer on top), it would be TREMENDOUSLY helpful if >> > Adobe would approach Google and once and for all clarifies what's >> > allowed and what's not. If that's ever possible, that is. > > actually, google does not penalize for that. As long as as users can > see the same content that the googlebot indexes, that's ok, it's not > cloaking. I actually use detection on the server side and serve up > text from the database rather than a swf if i detect a bot. > > I used to have a link to where google says that was acceptable, but I > can't locate it at the moment, searching for it. > > On 12/16/06, dorkie dork from dorktown <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:dorkiedorkfromdorktown%40gmail.com> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > I have had a few emails that were misunderstood to the point they really >> > upset someone when it was not my intent at all. I think due to the >> > frustration of the issue things might be taken out of hand. I'm going to >> one >> > up all you guys and say JD AND Hank are both really nice guys. I've been on >> > the list with both of them for the last 3 years. Anyway, back to the point. >> > >> > We need JD to present this to Adobe as issue that needs attention. We also >> > need to be actively sending feature requests to the wish list and Google >> > wish list (is there one?). The way features make it into next releases is >> > mostly by majority vote and plausability (budget and other factors etc but >> > still mainly majority rule). >> > >> > While I know google will eventually get to it because Flex apps will become >> > more and more prevalent we can have them start addressing it now. The other >> > thing we can do is make it known to google that we are creating Flex apps. >> > There are no if ands or buts about it. They are coming. And if Google wants >> > to index them they are going to have to work with Adobe to figure out a way >> > to index dynamic content. >> > >> > --- >> > The problem >> > - Flex apps that have dynamic content are not searchable by search engines. >> > Example, a Flex forum. >> > >> > The Scenario >> > - Current search engines follow links, index content and keywords and rank >> > based based on that and other criteria (trackback links etc) >> > >> > The Players >> > - Developers, Clients, Adobe, Google, Yahoo, etc >> > - Users >> > >> > The Solution: >> > - Something developers could figure out. >> > - Something Adobe, Google or both together could figure out <-- best in my >> > opinion ADOBE PULL RANK >> > - Technically, it could be anything that works. Could be a completely new >> > approach. Maybe Google can call public API's in the swf to get dynamic >> > content. Whatever it is it, the ball needs to start moving in this >> > direction. >> > - All we need is something simple that works and doesn't interfere with our >> > work >> > >> > In the mean time: >> > - http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform >> > - [PLACE LINK TO GOOGLE WISH LIST HERE - no, i don't have it] >> > - blog on it >> > - continue to work through the issues in this thread. >> > - send flowers to JD. come back JD we love you!!! you had us at hello?!?!? >> > >> > >> > On 12/16/06, Cortlandt Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:cortrah%40gmail.com> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > I would like to say that I feel strongly that jd has been poorly treated >> > and wrongly insulted a number of times in this thread. >>> > > >>> > > I'd also like to suggest that allowing link spidering to dictate the >> > future of content indexing may be shortsighted. It's convienient, but it >> > gets worse every year as a way of finding information. Ten years ago Alta >> > Vista was the stuff, today it's Google, but the nature of search engines is >> > such that any year Google could find itself replaced by something else, rss >> > being a perfect example for a specific kind of info. >>> > > >>> > > Also, as a side note, as advertisers and marketers optimize the hell out >> > of their information, it gets harder to find real information on Google >> (and >> > not have the first 5 pages of a simple query return only links to >> products). >> > The natural progression is that that will continue until something else >> > takes over the role. >>> > > >>> > > I realize that in many cases it makes sense to go with the flow for >>> either >> > marketing or technical reasons and that google is a useful tool, but it's >> > far from the endgame on indexing information. >>> > > >>> > > I do agree that it would be in Adobe's interest to make publishing well >> > tagged information easier with built in components, tools, examples and >> > specs, but it's really going to be hard for them to do something like that >> > by themselves. They are probably better off waiting for developers to >> > articulate the problems and brainstorm solutions until it's clear what >> > they could do to help. >>> > > >>> > > Just my thoughts, not to be taken to seriously, but my real purpose of >> > commenting here is that I don't think jd was well treated and I wanted to >> > mention that. >>> > > >> > >> > > >
