|
|
Posted by Jake on 12/20/05 19:38
In message <1135048843.045848.99150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> writes
>
>Jake wrote:
>
>> In message <MvCdnbj31q3xsjveRVn-hg@adelphia.com>, Rob McAninch
>> <rob_13@excite.com> writes
>> >Jake>:
>> >> In message <dcmdnekii6a7qzneRVn-sA@adelphia.com>, Rob McAninch
>> >><rob_13@excite.com> writes
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly isn't so hard,
>> >>> if you take the time to do it.
>> >> Actually, getting frames to be search engine friendly is very easy
>> >>indeed.
>> >> I was interested in seeing what the poster had discovered that
>> >> wasn't generally known.
>Well. What isn't generally known about frames.
>That example you gave is not really a very good one. For example. In
>FireFox. If you make the text bigger, as a person with loe vision, such
>as myself would, by holding down the control key and pressing the +
>sign. You will see that it doesn't re-size properly. So you would need
>to scrole to read most of the content. If was not for the Meta Tags.
>That site would not even appear in the SE's. It doesn't even show the
>right frame in the source code. That is what the search bot sease when
>it looks at the code. So you get hardly any content. Also, I doubt very
>highly that a text only browser would be able to handle frames.
As Alan has already addressed this point adequately, I'll refrain from
doing so.
(BTW. Look at a frames-based site in Lynx if you want to see how a
text-only browser deals with one.)
>For more details you may want to read the artical I wrote on the
>subject at:
>http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips1.html
Well, that's really interesting.
>I hope this helps.
Certainly makes you think, doesn't it ;-)
regards.
--
Jake (jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|