Posted by Jake on 12/18/05 15:50

In message <dcmdnekii6a7qzneRVn-sA@adelphia.com>, Rob McAninch
<rob_13@excite.com> writes
>Jake>:
>> In message <1134821726.826261.132650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>Chaddy2222 <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> writes
>>> Paul W Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. I would suggest dumping the frames as they are not good at all for
>>> search engion opptomization.
>> Interesting. Would you like to expand on that?
>
>http://maps.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization+frames
>
>A couple specific articles, check out the one from useIT.
>http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/article.php/2167901

Nothing new here. Just standard 'good practice' coding as it's always
been ..

>http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
"Since mainstream browsers still do not implement HTML 4.0 ....... "
;-)
>
>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.

>The usability is still pretty awful though just as that article from
>1996 points out (although the browsers in use have certainly changed).

Usability can be awful, good, and very good (just like all sites). It
depends very much on the design and the use it's put to.
>
>I've seen some JavaScript that can make bookmarking work, or even a
>server side method could do a similar job by passing parameters on the
>URL and building the framesets programatically.
>
Regards.

--
Jake (jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Back to original message]