I use the embed & object tag combo to display SWF's. Just like we use alt for img, how do I tell search engines what content my SWF contains?
Lately google introduced indexing swf text content, and maybe other engines will follow.
For details see http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html
AFAIK there's no "ALT" specific for SWF. Google can read the contents just fine though, as long as you don't hide it behind Javascript (generating the tags on the fly or upon page load).
Related
I have added in the bottom of my html like this (just like how stackoverflow has it implemented):
<noscript>This site works best with Javascript is enabled</noscript>
but in one of my pages that has very little text, the text "Javascript is disabled" appears in Google search.
Is there a way to tell Google to avoid indexing this part? Or is there a better alternative instead of using <noscript> tag?
The issue is that Google often won't render Javascript. It can - but it often won't.
You either need to present a pre-rendered page or provide it with a meta description that accurately describes the content. Look up tags and how Google uses them to embellish it's search listings.
Other options like or can encourage Google from deviating from the provided description. However, a pre-rendered page for it to scrape is always more reliable.
Is there a way for a bunch of named anchors in a large html to be clickable within a PhantomJs generated PDF file?
I.e. say I have a table of contents or a list of FAQ questions. When clicking on the question/title - I'm taken to its answer/content within the same HTML file which is great but when the same HTML is rendered into a PDF each named anchor becomes an absolute URL (i.e. http://example.com/render.html#anchor_1) so clicking on it opens a browser with that URL instead of jumping to its content within the PDF file.
So, basically, is it possible (and how?) for a markup like this - https://fiddle.jshell.net/jyjuaaog/ to work within the generated PDF?
BTW, this works great when "printing as a PDF file" in Google Chrome but links end up broken when rendered in PhantomJs so there must be something I'm missing that I can't seem to find in the docs.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
Apparently there's a bug in PhantomJs preventing this. As suggested by PhantomJsCloud a quick-and-dirty workaround would be to replace the links with page links.
All recently noticed that PDF documents in Scribd are also SEO friendly for search engines. For example the link http://www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson
If you open the page and see the HTML source code, the plain text from the PDF is not presented. However if you open the cached version of the page from Google search it appears a tag html_wrapper which contains the text from the entire PDF document.
Do they display different content depending of User-agent that make the request - ex. browser or bots?
I've heard some SEO practices that don't recommend displaying different content for bots? How bad practice is this from SEO prospective?
this is what google sees
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LY7o-liYlsJ:www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson+site:www.scribd.com/doc/17135767/FREE-by-Chris-Anderson&hl=en&strip=1
yeah, you should not display googlebot different content then a human user, said that there are ways to do ok conditional rendering (i.e.: render for no cookie clients, render for no javascript clients, render for clients without a language header, ...) this kind of rendering can be missleading, but if is not missleading then it might be ok for google. if you do this kind of conditional rendering it's then always a question of intend.
I'm working on an entirely flash-based site for a client who has already been using Blogspot for his News/Homepage updates. He wants to continue updating through Blogspot, but wants the blog to automatically fill in the text box on the flash site Homepage. I'm not sure if this is possible, or how I would go about doing it.
Here is the blogspot page:
http://atmarsamps.blogspot.com/
Here is an example of what the scrolling SWF text box will be like:
http://eloquentcreative.com/
Is this possible? Any help would be absolutely amazing!
You can use URLLoader to load the page as text. I'm not sure of the best way to parse it though.
Maybe you can try looking for the CSS tag that is being used for the text in question and then grabbing the text in between those tags? There might be better ways to do this though.
Note, you can update values to the htmlText property of a text box, which will allow Flex to maintain some of the styles specified from the loaded page.
Google image search seems to do a poor job on a site I run in identifying which image on a page should be indexed. In addition it doesn't seem to link that image with lots of the associated data.
Are there any ways of focusing attention for spiders on particular images and associated data, do they need to be within the same tags, or adjacent on the page?
A few tips:
Use a descriptive name, i.e. "tabby-cat.jpg" instead of "img02396.jpg".
Use alt tags on images.
Use descriptive text on the page and around the image.
Make sure the images are in the generated source, i.e. if you click "View source" in your browser, you see <img> tags.
It's also useful to validate your site at http://validator.w3.org in case there are major errors like missing brackets etc that could prevent a spider from parsing the page. (Note: I wouldn't worry about making everything 100% valid since Google is fine with invalid code)
Images in CSS (i.e. backgrounds) are not indexed AFAIK. However I'd suggest using CSS backgrounds for "design" images (a subtle way of getting Google to ignore site headers, custom borders, shadows, etc).
Nor are any images generated from Javascript.
Make sure you're not blocking images through robots.txt. I know that Joomla does this by default.
Sign up at Google Webmaster Tools, add your site, then allow it to be used in Google's "Image Labeller" game which should help tag images.
All images on a page should be indexed. If they aren't then improve your alt tags and possibly rename the image file. There really isn't anything more you can do since search-engines do not read any other context for the image itself except size. If google thinks the image is a duplicate it won't index it either.
Of course if images really do inherit context from the surrounding page then you could just use less images or move them into CSS.
I think Search robot can not read images as we do, so the simple and must thing you should do to your images is using descriptive names, so that spider could know what this image all about. Second one is using ALT tags on images, put in keywords relating to the images.
Those thing are what I do.