<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google and Yahoo&#8217;s Flash indexing is revealing&#8230; too much?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aralbalkan.com/1404/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404</link>
	<description>Passionate geekisms.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:21:26 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Farley</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-256315</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Farley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-256315</guid>
		<description>For those who may want to hide their swfs thus forcing user to enter through the index page i have posted a response on my website at
http://www.farley-webdesign.com/flash_indexing.html which reads as under:
FLASH INDEXING
 
Following the recent indexing of flash movies by Google we now find that the Google provides a direct access to the swfs when the developper may want the users to enter through their home page such as index.html

The advantage of entering through the index page is that it allows to provide for centering, adding counters and other javascript. If the user goes directly to the swf then the presentaton may not be what we intended, thus overriding all the html and javascript commands.

To overcome this problem I have done the following:

1 - Index.html is indexed, thus providing Google with the keywords we choose with no follow, thus the Google robot will not look any further than the index page.
2 - Insert Javascipt to redirect page to what is now Main.html
3 - Main.html is with meta tag, noindex, no follow
4 - Embed swf in this new main.html
5 - For existing websites it is better to rename swf to mySwfNew.swf
6 - Create a new swf with the old swf name with only one line of actionscript redirecting to the main.html. Thus if user finds a link in Google to your old swf he will be redirected to you new main.html
7 - All other swfs should be embedded into html with noindex and nofollow.

This seems to work perfectly for those who do not want to index their swfs. Hope this may help others.
Robert</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those who may want to hide their swfs thus forcing user to enter through the index page i have posted a response on my website at<br />
<a href="http://www.farley-webdesign.com/flash_indexing.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.farley-webdesign.com/flash_indexing.html</a> which reads as under:<br />
FLASH INDEXING</p>
<p>Following the recent indexing of flash movies by Google we now find that the Google provides a direct access to the swfs when the developper may want the users to enter through their home page such as index.html</p>
<p>The advantage of entering through the index page is that it allows to provide for centering, adding counters and other javascript. If the user goes directly to the swf then the presentaton may not be what we intended, thus overriding all the html and javascript commands.</p>
<p>To overcome this problem I have done the following:</p>
<p>1 &#8211; Index.html is indexed, thus providing Google with the keywords we choose with no follow, thus the Google robot will not look any further than the index page.<br />
2 &#8211; Insert Javascipt to redirect page to what is now Main.html<br />
3 &#8211; Main.html is with meta tag, noindex, no follow<br />
4 &#8211; Embed swf in this new main.html<br />
5 &#8211; For existing websites it is better to rename swf to mySwfNew.swf<br />
6 &#8211; Create a new swf with the old swf name with only one line of actionscript redirecting to the main.html. Thus if user finds a link in Google to your old swf he will be redirected to you new main.html<br />
7 &#8211; All other swfs should be embedded into html with noindex and nofollow.</p>
<p>This seems to work perfectly for those who do not want to index their swfs. Hope this may help others.<br />
Robert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Farley</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-256311</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Farley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-256311</guid>
		<description>The article and various comments were interesting. It is a shame that Google do not provide a choice for indexing or not indexing flash content. The problem is not so much in hiding secret content. The problem is that Google is proving direct access to the flash movies thus overridding any javascipt, counters, page alignment for centering flash movies etc. As google now provides direct access to swfs overridding html than we will no longr need to waist time on html compliance, nor will flash developpers need Microsoft. I wonder to what extent Google can legally provide a direct link to what a programmer may want to hide, as he may want to force the user to enter firstly by the home page.
The question is, Is it right for Google to allow users to override a developpers home page, on the basis that the site contains only the index page and flash movie
Robert.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article and various comments were interesting. It is a shame that Google do not provide a choice for indexing or not indexing flash content. The problem is not so much in hiding secret content. The problem is that Google is proving direct access to the flash movies thus overridding any javascipt, counters, page alignment for centering flash movies etc. As google now provides direct access to swfs overridding html than we will no longr need to waist time on html compliance, nor will flash developpers need Microsoft. I wonder to what extent Google can legally provide a direct link to what a programmer may want to hide, as he may want to force the user to enter firstly by the home page.<br />
The question is, Is it right for Google to allow users to override a developpers home page, on the basis that the site contains only the index page and flash movie<br />
Robert.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cory Tomlinson</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-191768</link>
		<dc:creator>Cory Tomlinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-191768</guid>
		<description>After looking at the results of Google&#039;s efforts on some of the site&#039;s I&#039;ve developed over the last couple of months I really think that they are missing the boat here.  And I&#039;ve begun to use robots.txt, as some of the others have mentioned here, to politely ask Google et al. from spidering my Flash files.

I for one honestly don&#039;t believe that Google or any of the search engine&#039;s should even be bothered with trying to index swf files. The answer to searchability for Flash....or at least for sites made entirely of Flash....has been around for a while it&#039;s just poorly executed for the most part. That is to deliver all of the content that Flash receives simultaneously as HTML to the parent container. A combination of SWFObject and something like SWFAddress or StateManager can then be used to control the interaction between the Flash Player and the Browser. Yes, it&#039;s more work, but in the long run it&#039;s the only method that truly works. I&#039;ve done it successfully and currently have a client enjoying very good rankings with a fully indexed and 100% Flash website that is CMS driven.

I guess in the end my suggestion to Google would be to engage the community before deciding what the best approach to indexing Flash might be. Don&#039;t just pass off a special version of the Flash player to the search engine&#039;s and let the experimentation begin while forcing developers to try and play catch-up without being able to fully understand what&#039;s going on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After looking at the results of Google&#8217;s efforts on some of the site&#8217;s I&#8217;ve developed over the last couple of months I really think that they are missing the boat here.  And I&#8217;ve begun to use robots.txt, as some of the others have mentioned here, to politely ask Google et al. from spidering my Flash files.</p>
<p>I for one honestly don&#8217;t believe that Google or any of the search engine&#8217;s should even be bothered with trying to index swf files. The answer to searchability for Flash&#8230;.or at least for sites made entirely of Flash&#8230;.has been around for a while it&#8217;s just poorly executed for the most part. That is to deliver all of the content that Flash receives simultaneously as HTML to the parent container. A combination of SWFObject and something like SWFAddress or StateManager can then be used to control the interaction between the Flash Player and the Browser. Yes, it&#8217;s more work, but in the long run it&#8217;s the only method that truly works. I&#8217;ve done it successfully and currently have a client enjoying very good rankings with a fully indexed and 100% Flash website that is CMS driven.</p>
<p>I guess in the end my suggestion to Google would be to engage the community before deciding what the best approach to indexing Flash might be. Don&#8217;t just pass off a special version of the Flash player to the search engine&#8217;s and let the experimentation begin while forcing developers to try and play catch-up without being able to fully understand what&#8217;s going on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aral Lobo</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-191721</link>
		<dc:creator>Aral Lobo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-191721</guid>
		<description>hey.. my name is also aral... i have never actually know the meaning... if u do i would be grateful if u could mail it to me.. thanks... aral lobo from india aralalobo@gmail.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey.. my name is also aral&#8230; i have never actually know the meaning&#8230; if u do i would be grateful if u could mail it to me.. thanks&#8230; aral lobo from india <a href="mailto:aralalobo@gmail.com">aralalobo@gmail.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harry</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-189744</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-189744</guid>
		<description>It  a nice site collecting all info about shopping goods.
I need this info because i want to buy some home ware goods.
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It  a nice site collecting all info about shopping goods.<br />
I need this info because i want to buy some home ware goods.<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matheus</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-178017</link>
		<dc:creator>Matheus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-178017</guid>
		<description>Funny thing, but seems that Google got confused when crawling my Flash site.

About 4 weeks ago I created a test website to see exactly how Google indexes a Flash site with contents coming from diferent sources:
http://seo.matheusgorino.com/
4 weeks later the only thing that Google has indexed is the initial string of my preloader TextField: &quot;0&quot;:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseo.matheusgorino.com

I&#039;m sure that Google bot has gone trough my website a lot o times because I&#039;m getting emailed everytime he does it. Also, he has correctly crawled another test version with alternative content that I have created in the same day of the simple version:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseofull.matheusgorino.com

Then today I acessed the Google Webmaster Tools and saw that Google is making a mistake when accessing my main.swf. He is trying to access it on http://seo.matheusgorino.com/http://seo.matheusgorino.com/main.swf witch is obviously wrong.
My test website has a main_loader.swf embed on the html code that preloads and then add to stage the main.swf, which is my main application file.
As you can see on http://matheusgorino.com/MainLoader.as the only thing that I&#039;m doing is an innocent new URLRequest(&quot;main.swf&quot;)... nothing special then.

The Google Webmaster Tools report screen is at:
http://matheusgorino.com/crawl.gif

Weird.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny thing, but seems that Google got confused when crawling my Flash site.</p>
<p>About 4 weeks ago I created a test website to see exactly how Google indexes a Flash site with contents coming from diferent sources:<br />
<a href="http://seo.matheusgorino.com/" rel="nofollow">http://seo.matheusgorino.com/</a><br />
4 weeks later the only thing that Google has indexed is the initial string of my preloader TextField: &#8220;0&#8243;:<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseo.matheusgorino.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseo.matheusgorino.com</a></p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that Google bot has gone trough my website a lot o times because I&#8217;m getting emailed everytime he does it. Also, he has correctly crawled another test version with alternative content that I have created in the same day of the simple version:<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseofull.matheusgorino.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aseofull.matheusgorino.com</a></p>
<p>Then today I acessed the Google Webmaster Tools and saw that Google is making a mistake when accessing my main.swf. He is trying to access it on <a href="http://seo.matheusgorino.com/http://seo.matheusgorino.com/main.swf" rel="nofollow">http://seo.matheusgorino.com/http://seo.matheusgorino.com/main.swf</a> witch is obviously wrong.<br />
My test website has a main_loader.swf embed on the html code that preloads and then add to stage the main.swf, which is my main application file.<br />
As you can see on <a href="http://matheusgorino.com/MainLoader.as" rel="nofollow">http://matheusgorino.com/MainLoader.as</a> the only thing that I&#8217;m doing is an innocent new URLRequest(&#8221;main.swf&#8221;)&#8230; nothing special then.</p>
<p>The Google Webmaster Tools report screen is at:<br />
<a href="http://matheusgorino.com/crawl.gif" rel="nofollow">http://matheusgorino.com/crawl.gif</a></p>
<p>Weird.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sherwood</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-165804</link>
		<dc:creator>Sherwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-165804</guid>
		<description>From the search engine optimization side of things, I can tell you that a lot of clients we work with are waiting with baited breath for this to be the answer to all their flash-indexing problems. 

From what I&#039;m reading (but have yet to see in search results) the landing page experience for a Google user will not be too hot. Getting dropped into a text-pull from inside a Flash animation doesn&#039;t do anyone any good. I&#039;d much rather see Google do this only for Flash that allows parameter passing, so that they could deliver you to the Flash, with the correct state.

@Filipe: People do conduct generic (unbranded) searches, but meta tags rarely do the trick on their own. It&#039;s not that meta tags are somehow lacking - it&#039;s just that there&#039;s a lot of competition out there for most keyphrases. If you don&#039;t have indexed page copy, it&#039;s highly unlikely that you&#039;ll rank for a high-volume keyphrase. That&#039;s why this could (potentially) be a big deal (if they get the landing page experience right.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the search engine optimization side of things, I can tell you that a lot of clients we work with are waiting with baited breath for this to be the answer to all their flash-indexing problems. </p>
<p>From what I&#8217;m reading (but have yet to see in search results) the landing page experience for a Google user will not be too hot. Getting dropped into a text-pull from inside a Flash animation doesn&#8217;t do anyone any good. I&#8217;d much rather see Google do this only for Flash that allows parameter passing, so that they could deliver you to the Flash, with the correct state.</p>
<p>@Filipe: People do conduct generic (unbranded) searches, but meta tags rarely do the trick on their own. It&#8217;s not that meta tags are somehow lacking &#8211; it&#8217;s just that there&#8217;s a lot of competition out there for most keyphrases. If you don&#8217;t have indexed page copy, it&#8217;s highly unlikely that you&#8217;ll rank for a high-volume keyphrase. That&#8217;s why this could (potentially) be a big deal (if they get the landing page experience right.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart Langridge</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-164351</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Langridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-164351</guid>
		<description>Well said. I read the first two paragraphs and was all geared up to writing a comment which said &quot;this is happening because hiding &#039;secret&#039; URLs in your Flash files is wrong!&quot; (which everyone has known for ages -- I wrote about it in 2002* and I&#039;m not even a Flash guy!)...and then read on to see you making precisely that point. I should have known better -- sorry to doubt you, Aral :)

sil

* http://www.kryogenix.org/writings/tech/lame-flash-scores</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said. I read the first two paragraphs and was all geared up to writing a comment which said &#8220;this is happening because hiding &#8217;secret&#8217; URLs in your Flash files is wrong!&#8221; (which everyone has known for ages &#8212; I wrote about it in 2002* and I&#8217;m not even a Flash guy!)&#8230;and then read on to see you making precisely that point. I should have known better &#8212; sorry to doubt you, Aral :)</p>
<p>sil</p>
<p>* <a href="http://www.kryogenix.org/writings/tech/lame-flash-scores" rel="nofollow">http://www.kryogenix.org/writings/tech/lame-flash-scores</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-164341</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-164341</guid>
		<description>robots.txt will solve all of your problems, you could also store the path as a var, or even take it further and break up the path and concat like they do in ad js. For example var url:String = &#039;my&#039;+&#039;script&#039;+&#039;.&#039;+&#039;php&#039;;

Compiled flash is by far secure. There are many decompilers out there, links to external MP3s can be found out by using a simple http sniffer, and if you are linking to a page check for the existence of a session cookie via js before linking (simple external interface call), search engines still can&#039;t run js (not sure about shared objects).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>robots.txt will solve all of your problems, you could also store the path as a var, or even take it further and break up the path and concat like they do in ad js. For example var url:String = &#8216;my&#8217;+&#8217;script&#8217;+&#8217;.&#8217;+'php&#8217;;</p>
<p>Compiled flash is by far secure. There are many decompilers out there, links to external MP3s can be found out by using a simple http sniffer, and if you are linking to a page check for the existence of a session cookie via js before linking (simple external interface call), search engines still can&#8217;t run js (not sure about shared objects).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Filipe Abreu</title>
		<link>http://aralbalkan.com/1404/comment-page-1#comment-164334</link>
		<dc:creator>Filipe Abreu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aralbalkan.com/1404#comment-164334</guid>
		<description>I wonder how this Flash index information will be ranked in a search query. Metatags always were more relevant than the text in a HTML, depending on the search. I can also think about the usability of it. How this information will actually be relevant to the general search we make? I am a Flash developer, and never had a problem with Google not displaying my whole content. Metatags did the job quite well. Most people makes generic searches. People who are actually making a very strict search, as a large set of text, would know what exactly they are searching for and where to find it, they don&#039;t actually need to google it, they only do it by laziness to actually browsing through the website. Design and develop well, focus on the user and nevermind the bollocks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how this Flash index information will be ranked in a search query. Metatags always were more relevant than the text in a HTML, depending on the search. I can also think about the usability of it. How this information will actually be relevant to the general search we make? I am a Flash developer, and never had a problem with Google not displaying my whole content. Metatags did the job quite well. Most people makes generic searches. People who are actually making a very strict search, as a large set of text, would know what exactly they are searching for and where to find it, they don&#8217;t actually need to google it, they only do it by laziness to actually browsing through the website. Design and develop well, focus on the user and nevermind the bollocks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
