on-page seo optimized pages with eye-pleasing designs

[lee_vhoi_ol]

Can you give me examples of sites with good SEO optimization for its pages with good, pleasing designs as well? I mean sites that are well optimized for onpage factors, that use the h1>h2>h3.

I know some good looking sites that rank high in Google, but that's because of their strong and relevant backlinks, as they use mainly Flash and all.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

Oh, I just researched it a moment ago... And there's such a thing as SEO friendly Flash. Still reading on it...

[JJMcClure]

I'd like to think that my sites fit that description. Just bog standard normal everyday websites for local businesses etc but built semantically and accessibly and with search engines in mind

[stymiee]

Oh, I just researched it a moment ago... And there's such a thing as SEO friendly Flash. Still reading on it...

There is no "real" SE friendly flash. Flash by its nature isn't search engine friendly. You can work around it a bit but if you use it it virtually is SE suicide.

[JJMcClure]

The problem with Flash is that search engines mostly can't see what's in the file so you could be showing the user anything you wanted. It would be a great way to spam if they allowed flash sites to rank well.

Until they can read flash properly it's not recommended if you need to make your incredibly brilliant user oriented top quality content site search engine friendly.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

SWFObject.js seems to solve the problem that search engines can't see what's the content in Flash. Though I'm still not quite sure if it's legal with Google, as so far as I've researched, Matt Cutts still hasn't said a statement about this yet.

[stymiee]

Search engines don't read javascript so how does it solve the problem?

[lee_vhoi_ol]

http://www.seopranos.com/2007/05/22/...d-swfobjectjs/
here's the article... again, the question is if it's acceptable to Google.

[stymiee]

That's just another way of putting alternate content in the page if flash isn't available. It really isn't a solution per sé. For example, you still lose all of the benefits of semantic markup especially anchor text. Basically it still boils down to Flash being bad for SEO.

[DaveWoods]

You don't need Flash to create eye-pleasing designs in my opinion and even if you do want to use it, there's no need for it to effect search engine optimization.

Don't use flash for navigation or the main bulk of content.
Do use flash for decorative images/banner headers if you so wish.

Stick to those rules and you shouldn't have any search engine issues.

[stymiee]

Exactly. Use potentially inaccessible methods to enhance a site but don't use them to display important content.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

ok, i pretty much get that now. Thanks both!

[JJMcClure]

I don't like moving elements at all but if you do, I wouldn't have more than one on any page, unless they do something then stop moving.

Use them to compliment your design rather than AS the design. That's how I've always seen flash.

[lynnch]

That's just another way of putting alternate content in the page if flash isn't available. It really isn't a solution per sé. For example, you still lose all of the benefits of semantic markup especially anchor text.

Im not sure this is true. swfobject lets you write whatever you like to the page, and this can include perfectly valid html with headers, links etc.

In my experience google sees this alternative content perfectly well including anchor text. Am I missing something?

In theory I agree that using flash is a seo no-no, but there are times when clients will not have it any other way, and swfobject (I think) is a valid way of trying to overcome some of its limitations. Whether it is legal or not in google's eyes is another question, but I dont really see why they should have a problem if it is used to legitimately present alternative content to users without flash.

My two cents...

[stymiee]

I didn't read the whole thing so I'll need someone to explain to me how a javascript can create search engine friendly content.

[DaveWoods]

I didn't read the whole thing so I'll need someone to explain to me how a javascript can create search engine friendly content.

I presume what's being talked about is using HTML but then using things like CSS, JavaScript to replace that text with either images or flash movies.

There's not really a problem doing this from a search engine perspective and is in the main still accessible as long as it's done correctly.

I wouldn't usually go down this route personally though purely because it's doing the same thing twice for different users and I do feel that accessibility shouldn't be about providing one thing to users with a high spec machine, modern browser, fast connection, latest plugins and then another version for everyone else.

[stymiee]

So this is just a slightly better way of creating a second website where one isn't flash. Nothing really new or special.

[DaveWoods]

It's more like image replacement for including images/flash using css/javascript to replace static HTML for users that have support for it.

Essentially, progressive enhancement.

Like you say, nothing new or special and shouldn't impact accessibility/seo as those that can't support it will simply ignore it.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

I didn't read the whole thing so I'll need someone to explain to me how a javascript can create search engine friendly content.

the way i understand it... you can place your text content in the javascript file, so when the search engine crawls your website, since it can't read flash, the one in the javascript will be displayed. And thus, the search engine should be able to read the text (presumably the same text you placed in the flash file). I think that's the rough idea of it.

It solves the content problem by making the content available for the search engines, but i'm not sure if it can do anything for the anchor weight problem.

there should be no issue with search engines so long as you place the same text in the javascript as the one displayed in your flash.

this should be better than just using flash with no swfobject for the clients that do require flash.

[DaveWoods]

the way i understand it... you can place your text content in the javascript file, so when the search engine crawls your website, since it can't read flash, the one in the javascript will be displayed. And thus, the search engine should be able to read the text (presumably the same text you placed in the flash file). I think that's the rough idea of it.

Nope, search engines don't tend to read JavaScript either

The JavaScript is used to replace the HTML with the Flash file and therefore the content is still readable by search engines.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

Nope, search engines don't tend to read JavaScript either

The JavaScript is used to replace the HTML with the Flash file and therefore the content is still readable by search engines.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

awkies, i took a look at the actual code, and yes. methinks i get that now.

[lee_vhoi_ol]

do you actually use h1 tags? coz it looks too big. anyway, this one is one of the things i try to think about--how to onpage optimize and at the same time make the design look good.

So, know any on-page seo optimized pages with eye-pleasing designs? I'd like to take a look at them to get ideas.

[stymiee]

do you actually use h1 tags? coz it looks too big.

You can style them with CSS to not be so big.

[DaveWoods]

do you actually use h1 tags? coz it looks too big. anyway, this one is one of the things i try to think about--how to onpage optimize and at the same time make the design look good.

Of course, <h1> tags only appear large by default, you can style them however you want using CSS

[lynnch]

So this is just a slightly better way of creating a second website where one isn't flash. Nothing really new or special.

Yeah, that is pretty much it.