Non 'Standard' example

SEO-Board: Free, Fast and Search Engine Optimization Friendly Forum Script

SEO-Board Forum Software Community / General / Showcase / Non 'Standard' example

Pages: 1

Posted: 12 Dec 2005 22:42
	Registered User	Posts: 17 Join Date: Aug 2005
I added SEO-Board to a site which is abnormal by todays standards -- Site uses frames, supports noframes also, and uses black for a background color. The main entry for the site http://lhead.com also uses the recent posts module. Direct to SEO-Board is http://http://lhead.com/seo-board - which consequently will be unframed... Nothing real special to it, however I did add a couple items to the standard SEO-Board navbar to help navigate back to the site for both framed and non-framed visitors (and those that enter by direct URL). No google adsense added to the SEO-Board presently. Might add it but have to decide how since I need to consider the impact of the present framed and non-framed dimensions, popular browser sizes and so forth still.

Posted: 12 Dec 2005 23:16
	Registered User	Posts: 17 Join Date: Aug 2005
OOps, above should obviously be http://lhead.com/seo-board for the direct link.

Posted: 13 Dec 2005 10:32
	Administrator	Posts: 1104 Join Date: Mar 2005
Why don't you rebuild the site without frames? You are sabotaging your chances for search engine traffic.

Posted: 13 Dec 2005 22:16
	Registered User	Posts: 17 Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote: Why don't you rebuild the site without frames? You are sabotaging your chances for search engine traffic. Perhaps if the site was to show 'you need frames' type messages your statement would be true. I think there are other aspects which could do me better than simply dumping the frames. Mostly I think it simply takes time/patience for google. I have a ISP hosted personal site which after ~3 years has a google PR of 4. Basically just sat/sits there with static content. Another 2 ISP hosted personal sites seemed to do okay too. One about a year old now, framed has a Google PR of 3. A much older one, perhaps 5-6 years with a great deal of content and links, no frames, produces a PR of 3 also. Additionally all of these personal sites have had virtually no attention to SEO given. I maintain the non-framed version of the complete site also -- which MSN, Google and Yahoo all crawl nicely according to the logs. I read that most self proclaimed SEO experts take the same stance as you with regard to frames. However, unless the robot simply leaves a site when it finds <frameset> in the index.* file I challenge you to validate the claim that frames simply ruin search traffic. Granted, the site would be easier to work on if frames were removed. Don't get me wrong, I am not a frames fanatic. Just sort of started out using them and have become comfortable working with them. Frankly I also do not intend to let search engine secret workings dictate entirely what I put on the web. The secret can after all change and have everyone guessing and clammoring to get back in favor with google. Frankly, Google is a complete pain IMO. So much SEO crap used to get useless sites in the top spots typically results in wasting my (and everyone elses) time trying to find something actually worth looking at for more than 1/2 a second.

Posted: 14 Dec 2005 12:32
	Administrator	Posts: 1104 Join Date: Mar 2005
DMZ, Quote: I read that most self proclaimed SEO experts take the same stance as you with regard to frames. However, unless the robot simply leaves a site when it finds <frameset> in the index.* file I challenge you to validate the claim that frames simply ruin search traffic. Self-proclaimed SEO experts are sometimes right Let me quote Google: Quote: Your pages use frames. Google supports frames to the extent that we can. Frames tend to cause problems with search engines, bookmarks, emailing links and so on, because frames don't fit the conceptual model of the web (every page corresponds to a single URL). If a user's query matches the page as a whole, Google returns the frame set. If a user's query matches an individual frame on the page, Google returns the URL for that frame. The page is not displayed in a frame because there may be no frame set corresponding to that URL. 1. How do you make up a page out of a few URLs (each of them having its own title? 2. How do you assign URLs to all pages and interpret the linking structure? (to calculate PR) 3. Let me ask you this. I am a user coming at your framed site. I get to an internal page and want to link to it. How can I do this? The URL in the address bar stays the same no matter where you are in your site. Of course, I can right-click the mouse on some of the frames and get the URL but that's not quite good. 4. When Google sends you traffic to a separate frame, it f**ks up the design of your site. 5. Sites with frames usually look like they haven't been updated since 1997.

Posted: 14 Dec 2005 19:10
	Registered User	Posts: 17 Join Date: Aug 2005
I am sure the SEO experts know better than me, and I do try and digest what all I can dig up about it. One site in particular caught my attention a while back: http://www.pawluk.com/public/ I fiddled around with .js some experimeting with various re-framer techniques. I may be wrong but the whole point was to get -people- to see the site properly and I finally decided I would just add plain links to individual pages which I expect is better for crawlers. I probably have missed some pages, requiring a user to manually chop the URL to get to more/rest of the site. That sort of covers 1 & 2. With regard to #3, I see the problem and compare it to sites which use mod_rewrite lavishly. I don't think it's any more unfriendly to a user than many a site which are not bookmark friendly which do not use frames. I suppose like the sites I am referring to, the focus is to steer site entry to the main entry page. At least with frames it is possible to bookmark the internal page with minimal extra effort. I suppose that I could make it easier by adding some 'bookmark this page' type links. On the other hand, consider that there are pages that I don't particularly want bookmarked. Frames make that a little easier. As for #4, yes. It does temporarily alter the desired framed look of the site. If I added some .js and a user has scripting on it could be fixed on the fly for most people. I leaned towards just adding links since a click can get things back in order and doesn't exclude those (few?) who disable scripting. I suppose any framed site will be percieved as 90s-ish since they are such an old mechanism and people are not seeing them much. I imagine there are very few of the millions of canned templates that use frames.. In a perhaps masochistic way I like frames because so many websites look as if they came from the same mold.. About like looking at cars today.

Posted: 16 Dec 2005 18:05
	Registered User	Posts: 17 Join Date: Aug 2005
and finally I will get this posted! Well... I poked around some with some search engines and checked the results and then had a hard time getting my feet out of my mouth. site:<domain> for lhead is miserable and for some odd reason is showing only a single, quite old page. Strange since I see periodic crawls from googlebot which I assumed were indexing -something-! I know for a fact that Google used to spit the site up a couple months ago when I tested the search. Meanwhile MSN is showing various parts, some which are orphaned inner frame pages that I had not included any obvious re-frameing links like the sitemap (ie: the menu content pages). Rats. I have been itching to change the site for a while.. but sort of dread the thought of actually doing it. Perhaps as a interrim work-around I'll take another look at the javascript framejammer techniques I tried a while back... I now remember why I abandoned the javascript frame jammers -- aside from requiring javascript, they made non-frame pages a disaster and I decided not to persue a reasonable solution. It still seems like something is in a state of flux with google and my site since it was indexed pretty good a month or so ago and now nothing. Maybe I have messed up something with my robots.txt or htaccess file.

Posted: 16 Dec 2005 20:26
	Administrator	Posts: 1104 Join Date: Mar 2005
Get rid of da framezzz

Pages: 1