/customers/iconara.net/iconara.net/httpd.www/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase1.php Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/4/c/9/iconara.net/httpd.www/blog/wp-content/advanced-cache.php:1) in /customers/4/c/9/iconara.net/httpd.www/blog/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8 Comments on: The Red Herring revisited http://blog.iconara.net/2008/07/23/the-red-herring-revisited/ Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:41:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John Dowdell http://blog.iconara.net/2008/07/23/the-red-herring-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-7119 John Dowdell Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:41:41 +0000 http://blog.iconara.net/?p=201#comment-7119 <p>I'd be surprised if Google or Yahoo or Microsoft did much processing of the DOM at all.</p> <p>A lot of SEO writing is just eyewash... first you figure out how people might plausibly search for your service, and whether you might plausibly rank highly on those terms (eg, you've got too much competition on query "flowers", but might place on "'san francisco' flower delivery orchids"), and then work on your usual title, URL, metadata and particularly inbound anchor text.</p> <p>With the state of search engines today, expecting any type of meaningful realworld result for every single world just seems strange.</p> <p>jd/adobe</p> I’d be surprised if Google or Yahoo or Microsoft did much processing of the DOM at all.

A lot of SEO writing is just eyewash… first you figure out how people might plausibly search for your service, and whether you might plausibly rank highly on those terms (eg, you’ve got too much competition on query “flowers”, but might place on “‘san francisco’ flower delivery orchids”), and then work on your usual title, URL, metadata and particularly inbound anchor text.

With the state of search engines today, expecting any type of meaningful realworld result for every single world just seems strange.

jd/adobe

]]>
By: Theo http://blog.iconara.net/2008/07/23/the-red-herring-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-7115 Theo Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:58:05 +0000 http://blog.iconara.net/?p=201#comment-7115 <p>Yes, the issue of how dynamically loaded content should be weighed is a tricky one, especially in the context of Flash where there is nothing like the semantics of HTML. A blob of text is loaded, cut up and stuck in different places of the application, but how do you make any sense out of it?</p> <p>When it comes to Ajax the way you do that is to look for changes in the DOM and reindex. You capture the semantics of the new state just as any web page, h1 means header, p means body text, and so on.</p> <p>When it comes to Flash there's no semantics at all, all you see is plain text in text fields. How do you know what is important and what is not, what relates to what and which fields are headers and which are just junk?</p> <p>I've argued for progressive enhancement in favour of SWF indexing again and again, it's better that we deliver the content in a structured and rich format to Google, than Google trying to make sense of the content in an environment where it has been stripped of its structure and semantics.</p> <p>SWF indexing is a red herring: it diverts attention away from more useful solutions.</p> Yes, the issue of how dynamically loaded content should be weighed is a tricky one, especially in the context of Flash where there is nothing like the semantics of HTML. A blob of text is loaded, cut up and stuck in different places of the application, but how do you make any sense out of it?

When it comes to Ajax the way you do that is to look for changes in the DOM and reindex. You capture the semantics of the new state just as any web page, h1 means header, p means body text, and so on.

When it comes to Flash there’s no semantics at all, all you see is plain text in text fields. How do you know what is important and what is not, what relates to what and which fields are headers and which are just junk?

I’ve argued for progressive enhancement in favour of SWF indexing again and again, it’s better that we deliver the content in a structured and rich format to Google, than Google trying to make sense of the content in an environment where it has been stripped of its structure and semantics.

SWF indexing is a red herring: it diverts attention away from more useful solutions.

]]>
By: John Dowdell http://blog.iconara.net/2008/07/23/the-red-herring-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-7113 John Dowdell Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:01:21 +0000 http://blog.iconara.net/?p=201#comment-7113 <p>Info about Google following SWFObject JavaScript, and not yet doing external data loads, was in an update to Google's original group post on the subject: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html</p> <p>Google did say that they had already been indexing webpage application states discovered via Ichabod, but they did not offer a public estimate of how long it would take to process all sites.</p> <p>(That question of "What should a search engine do with data which webpages dynamically load?" is a very complex one, applying to Ajax as well as Flash. Many SEO debates are about each and every word of text, when it's a near-certainty that sites would not be significantly ranked for incidental text. For instance, if multiple sites access the same external datasource, which one gets ranked higher?)</p> <p>(I had initial doubts what that "fleximagically searchable" test would prove, particularly after I saw a lot of webpages discussing it.... ;-)</p> <p>jd/adobe</p> Info about Google following SWFObject JavaScript, and not yet doing external data loads, was in an update to Google’s original group post on the subject: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html

Google did say that they had already been indexing webpage application states discovered via Ichabod, but they did not offer a public estimate of how long it would take to process all sites.

(That question of “What should a search engine do with data which webpages dynamically load?” is a very complex one, applying to Ajax as well as Flash. Many SEO debates are about each and every word of text, when it’s a near-certainty that sites would not be significantly ranked for incidental text. For instance, if multiple sites access the same external datasource, which one gets ranked higher?)

(I had initial doubts what that “fleximagically searchable” test would prove, particularly after I saw a lot of webpages discussing it…. ;-)

jd/adobe

]]>
By: Theo http://blog.iconara.net/2008/07/23/the-red-herring-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-7105 Theo Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:37:01 +0000 http://blog.iconara.net/?p=201#comment-7105 <p>Perhaps I should explain why I think that Ryan's competition has major flaws:</p> <p>Firstly, SEO is not only about content, it is just as much about linking to the content and having an appropriate URL, page title, etc. The content only counts for so much. Moreover, each entry will contain the exact same content, namely the search string (any other content can be subtracted because it will not have any relation to it), this means that removing any other variables from the calculation <em>all entries should rank the same</em>. Thus we can conclude that the winner will win <em>only because of factors outside of the goal of the competition</em>. So neither Flex nor Google's new indexing techniques have anything to do with it.</p> <p>Secondly, Flex search engine optimization is not very interesting. There are a limited number of use cases where it would even make sense to index a Flex application -- examples are shops and showcases -- but most applications require the user to log in, or contain only user generated content that is transient or private and can't be indexed.</p> <p>I think that Ryan only have good intentions. Competitions like this are great, it's just that perhaps this one wasn't so well though through. Unfortunately I don't think it has done much more than spread misunderstandings about the "why" of Flex SEO.</p> Perhaps I should explain why I think that Ryan’s competition has major flaws:

Firstly, SEO is not only about content, it is just as much about linking to the content and having an appropriate URL, page title, etc. The content only counts for so much. Moreover, each entry will contain the exact same content, namely the search string (any other content can be subtracted because it will not have any relation to it), this means that removing any other variables from the calculation all entries should rank the same. Thus we can conclude that the winner will win only because of factors outside of the goal of the competition. So neither Flex nor Google’s new indexing techniques have anything to do with it.

Secondly, Flex search engine optimization is not very interesting. There are a limited number of use cases where it would even make sense to index a Flex application — examples are shops and showcases — but most applications require the user to log in, or contain only user generated content that is transient or private and can’t be indexed.

I think that Ryan only have good intentions. Competitions like this are great, it’s just that perhaps this one wasn’t so well though through. Unfortunately I don’t think it has done much more than spread misunderstandings about the “why” of Flex SEO.

]]>