Maybe someday they will get this thing figured out.
DP
From: mnswf@googlegroups.com [mailto:mnswf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dustin Tauer Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:52 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Searchable SWF files
Not too exciting in my opinion, Google was doing this last year as well - for me, it ended up exposing our i...@5gdm.com address and flooded my mail server with Russian spoofs for a week. Sounds like there have been some minor advancements in the process. But all they are doing is scanning the .swf file for static text - how many of us use static text?
What we need is a standard for formatting external data, or a standard for applying relevant data in static navigation. How about a .swf map - like the google sitemap? A basic deep link architecture could be created that at least brought you to top level items. This would be so easy to implement on most sites.
The funny thing, anything using SwfObject for detection won't even be indexed because it's javascript - ironic when you consider that Geoff Stearns' (who works for YouTube/Google) - his script has become the standard for progressive enhancement, Flash detection and data injection. You'd think Adobe and Google could agree to at least use the standards they have endorsed to overcome some basic search issues and develop it further.
From Danny's link:
1. Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.
2. We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.
Shawn Sheely m. 612.819.5549
On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Danny Patterson wrote:
In talking with Ted Patrick from Adobe he said this solution includes dynamic text loaded from a remote service. The comment about XML, HTML and SWF being treated as a separate file is a bit strange, but I guess that is just another feather in the cap for AMF Remoting. This isn't the same as what Google had previously since it actually executes the SWF instead of just parsing it. It will basically go through that SWF as a user would by executing button clicks etc. Seems like there are a lot of ways this could go wrong, but I'll withhold my judgment until I see it in action.
As far as your email address goes, google is recommending that you put this content in an image. Or I suppose you could dynamically take a snapshot of your text and draw that to the display list.
Yes, this definitely pokes a big hole in progressive enhancement using JavaScript since mow you actually want the bots to see your SWF.
DP
From: mnswf@googlegroups.com [mailto:mnswf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shawn Sheely Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:13 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Re: Searchable SWF files
Thanks Dustin,
Not too exciting in my opinion, Google was doing this last year as well - for me, it ended up exposing our i...@5gdm.com address and flooded my mail server with Russian spoofs for a week. Sounds like there have been some minor advancements in the process. But all they are doing is scanning the .swf file for static text - how many of us use static text?
What we need is a standard for formatting external data, or a standard for applying relevant data in static navigation. How about a .swf map - like the google sitemap? A basic deep link architecture could be created that at least brought you to top level items. This would be so easy to implement on most sites.
The funny thing, anything using SwfObject for detection won't even be indexed because it's javascript - ironic when you consider that Geoff Stearns' (who works for YouTube/Google) - his script has become the standard for progressive enhancement, Flash detection and data injection. You'd think Adobe and Google could agree to at least use the standards they have endorsed to overcome some basic search issues and develop it further.
From Danny's link:
1. Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.
2. We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.
Shawn Sheely
m. 612.819.5549
On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Danny Patterson wrote:
Maybe someday they will get this thing figured out.
DP
From: mnswf@googlegroups.com [mailto:mnswf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dustin Tauer Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:52 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Searchable SWF files
I just looked at how my old Flash portfolio appeared in Google, and it listed my email address in the description, but backwards and with spaces between every letter. Is this a bug, or is it a feature to help prevent email harvesting?
I also wonder how the "separate indexing" of external resources will work. Will the bare XML files start showing up in search results? I'm already not a huge fan of how my SWFs can be found and directly opened (they are scaled to fit the browser window, making the bitmaps look horrible). If things like external XML files are also going to be indexed (but not associated with the SWFs that use them), it seems like it could add clutter to search results, taking attention away from the pages that you actually want people to visit.
> Not too exciting in my opinion, Google was doing this last year as > well - for me, it ended up exposing our i...@5gdm.com address and > flooded my mail server with Russian spoofs for a week. Sounds like > there have been some minor advancements in the process. But all > they are doing is scanning the .swf file for static text - how many > of us use static text?
> What we need is a standard for formatting external data, or a > standard for applying relevant data in static navigation. How about > a .swf map - like the google sitemap? A basic deep link > architecture could be created that at least brought you to top level > items. This would be so easy to implement on most sites.
> The funny thing, anything using SwfObject for detection won't even > be indexed because it's javascript - ironic when you consider that > Geoff Stearns' (who works for YouTube/Google) - his script has > become the standard for progressive enhancement, Flash detection and > data injection. You'd think Adobe and Google could agree to at > least use the standards they have endorsed to overcome some basic > search issues and develop it further.
> From Danny's link:
> 1. Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your > web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware > of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.
> 2. We currently do not attach content from external resources that > are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML > file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately > index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of > the content in your Flash file.
> Shawn Sheely > m. 612.819.5549
> On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Danny Patterson wrote:
I’m not too excited about this update either. I really don’t have any
flash-exclusive content on my sites that I want Google or Yahoo! to
index. Right now I use flash for video podcasts, product selectors,
marketing banners, and landing pages—all content that I really don’t
want Google to crawl. SWFObject, which is what I use to embed my Flash
content, allows you to display alternate content to people who do not
have the required version of the Flash Player or who do not have
JavaScript enabled (i.e. iPhone, search engine spiders, and people who
are afraid of Flash). I use the alternate content ability to craft
optimized HTML output for search engine spiders and it works fine for
me.
Danny, So does this mean Google actually runs the swf app as if a client would? You mention remote services. Does that mean AMF and remotings like it will work. What happens if I have my own home grown php service that I interface with and display in Flash. According to what you know will that also work?
Another question that I had was lets say that it will index the dynamic content of flash apps. When that content shows up on Google and I click on it will I end up on a particular state with the swf app to see that content or will the user have to navigate through and find it.
Saviz
From: Danny Patterson Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:29 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Re: Searchable SWF files
In talking with Ted Patrick from Adobe he said this solution includes dynamic text loaded from a remote service. The comment about XML, HTML and SWF being treated as a separate file is a bit strange, but I guess that is just another feather in the cap for AMF Remoting. This isn't the same as what Google had previously since it actually executes the SWF instead of just parsing it. It will basically go through that SWF as a user would by executing button clicks etc. Seems like there are a lot of ways this could go wrong, but I'll withhold my judgment until I see it in action.
As far as your email address goes, google is recommending that you put this content in an image. Or I suppose you could dynamically take a snapshot of your text and draw that to the display list.
Yes, this definitely pokes a big hole in progressive enhancement using JavaScript since mow you actually want the bots to see your SWF.
DP
From: mnswf@googlegroups.com [mailto:mnswf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shawn Sheely Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:13 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Re: Searchable SWF files
Thanks Dustin,
Not too exciting in my opinion, Google was doing this last year as well - for me, it ended up exposing our i...@5gdm.com address and flooded my mail server with Russian spoofs for a week. Sounds like there have been some minor advancements in the process. But all they are doing is scanning the .swf file for static text - how many of us use static text?
What we need is a standard for formatting external data, or a standard for applying relevant data in static navigation. How about a .swf map - like the google sitemap? A basic deep link architecture could be created that at least brought you to top level items. This would be so easy to implement on most sites.
The funny thing, anything using SwfObject for detection won't even be indexed because it's javascript - ironic when you consider that Geoff Stearns' (who works for YouTube/Google) - his script has become the standard for progressive enhancement, Flash detection and data injection. You'd think Adobe and Google could agree to at least use the standards they have endorsed to overcome some basic search issues and develop it further.
From Danny's link:
1. Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.
2. We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.
Shawn Sheely
m. 612.819.5549
On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Danny Patterson wrote:
Maybe someday they will get this thing figured out.
DP
From: mnswf@googlegroups.com [mailto:mnswf@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dustin Tauer Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:52 AM To: mnswf@googlegroups.com Subject: [mnswf] Searchable SWF files
