So here is my case I have an XML which is the core of a flash template. I also have PHP to use this XML as a source of content that is identical by design to the flash. When the users are on mobile, or have no flash, or search engine bots I want to display the HTML content which is designed, has CSS and JS so full feature not just plain text.
I can put all of these into the swfobject alternate content (The div that gets replaced, I’m using the different method so I guess that’s where I should put the alternate content.)
But somehow I prefer doing it all on server side. I have PHP variable that is true if the user agent is a mobile or the visitor IP == google bot ip. I can still use alternate content for users that are on desktop computer but still don’t have flash palyer (very tiny percentage of people).
Is it okay for google if I feed it a different page (but exactly the same content) altogether and essentially hiding flash, or should I just use the alt content? I have a feeling that flash gets in the way because google actually can read flash. How can I tell it’ll read and use the alternate content and not trying to struggle with the flash?
This might be something that will help.
Question is. Which is better: If I have the fully featured alternate content in the div that gets replaced by the SWFObject’s dynamic publishing method and leave it as that for google as well. If google can read SWFObject’s SWF ’s it means that the alt content got replaced for google as well therefore it can’t access the alternative content? Or it’ll prefer that to the flash..
Or if google is the visitor (filtered by IP) don’t fire the swfobject, basically.
In my experience google’s spiders read all the text on the page. It doesn’t matter what the div says or if SWF content is replacing it. It’s also been my experience that SWF content that’s indexed shows up in the search results saying it’s a swf and when you click the link in the results google loads ONLY the swf.
I also think for google to index your SWF you have to submit your SWF file to them.
What would be ideal in the case of an XML flash template would be for some server side code that parses the XML and based on the nodes and content creates HTML pages inclucing a swfaddress var to the corresponding part in the flash template. AND while we’re at it have it generate a mobile version of the site.
That would be sweet.
SEO , MOBILE, & to top it off and Amazing Flash Site.
That would be sweet.
Sending you a PM.
Hello there! I found this post after researching for the differences between Alternate Content and Cloaking ( if they exists ).
Any bad results on your testing with this approach? I’ve been using Gaia Flash Framework for a while (with some mods of mine) and got nice results (actually the same of a HTML only website).
I’m providing the exactly same essential text content for Flash and for the people that, for some reason, doesn’t have the plugin in a HTML div “behind” Flash. My projects are perfectly indexed, with site links, at first position etc etc but I’m trying to find if this is the best way to work with Full Flash Hotsites.
I’m still looking for a good answer to this but no success at all.
Not many use Gaia Flash Framework, so i don’t know how practical it is for the mass