Getting Flash sites indexed

Diceicle

This may not be the correct part of the forum, if it's not, mods please move it as necessary.

I am new to Adobe Flash and have some questions regarding Flash and the way web crawlers for Search Engines list Flash sites.
Am I right in thinking that, in order to get a Flash site picked up by web crawlers I will have to embed the SWF in a HTML file along with a chunk of the site text (or content)? Or would I have to use some code along the lines of FlashObject by Geoff Stearns to get Google et al to recognise me?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.

p

Flash Object (now called SWF Object) is a good approach to start with.

Liam Byrne

Is there a damn good reason for using Flash ? If not, avoid it.

Flash is great for some small components within pages, but if the entire site is in Flash (and in particular the navigation and the text content) you're just asking for trouble; no matter what you do, a properly-designed website (as distinct from a page containing a Flash movie) will beat the pants off a Flash site.

Why tie one hand behind your back before you start ?

Trojan

If you have html/text, or better yet an alternative html version, or better yet only a html version, that will be picked up by the search engines.

I.e. pretty much what Liam said.

NickNolte

If you're serious about getting content indexed by SE's then don't build the entire site in Flash. There are very few reasons for building sites completely in Flash... certainly not commercial sites. Ephemeral microsites and sites that are predominantly rich media-heavy are okay... sometimes.

Liam Byrne

Trojan wrote: »

If you have html/text, or better yet an alternative html version, or better yet only a html version, that will be picked up by the search engines.

Ah yes, the old "build an expensive Flash version and a crappy 'view HTML' afterthought version approach, which means that Google sees - and sends people to - the crappy afterthought version....no-one ever gets to see the Flash version at all ! :rolleyes: :P

As Trojan said, better yet only a html version; put the effort and budget into one strong, worthwhile, SEO friendly version with semantic markup and all of the basics (plus maybe a few flash banners or animated graphics if they're really required) and reap the rewards.

NickNolte

Agreed. Building a Flash version and HTML version of the same website in this day and age is utterly retarded... as well as being a waste of time and money.

Diceicle

Thanks for the help. I'm fairly rusty when it comes to page design (did course years ago and am only now getting back some interest in the area, so please forgive my ignoance when it comes to some things. :pac:)

When it's said, build the entire site with HTML, I presume it is possible to build fairly slick looking sites using solid HTML? Its just that when I think of a HTML only site, the flat looking Frames style sites spring to mind. Would there be an example of a slick, stylish HTML site out there?

When you refer to HTML, is it HTML and CSS or just pure HTML (this is a stupid question, i know)

And lastly, what are the general opinions on XML sites?

Again, thanks for any help.

herya

HTML mostly means XHTML+CSS these days, google "css gallery" for bucketloads of examples - attractive professional non-Flash websites.

jmcc

Google does index Flash sites but I think that it is limited to just using the links. If there isn't any text content, then most search engine will ignore the site. It is best to use a primarily HTML based approach to building a site if you want to get any decent ranking in search engines. The only way that a primarily Flash site could hope to rank would be by means of some very widespread links from other websites.

Regards...jmcc

Liam Byrne

Diceicle wrote: »

When it's said, build the entire site with HTML, I presume it is possible to build fairly slick looking sites using solid HTML? Its just that when I think of a HTML only site, the flat looking Frames style sites spring to mind. Would there be an example of a slick, stylish HTML site out there?

That's the equivalent of saying that when you think of computers you think of a Commodore 64. Things have moved on in leaps and bounds since.

Diceicle wrote: »

When you refer to HTML, is it HTML and CSS or just pure HTML (this is a stupid question, i know)

HTML still looks nasty enough by default - it's just text and tags. CSS controls how it looks (fonts, colours, background-images, etc). And some JavaScript is often used to provide more interesting interaction / animations, etc.

Diceicle wrote: »

And lastly, what are the general opinions on XML sites?

XML is not a website. It might be used to provide the data that gets displayed via HTML or CSS (or XSLT) but it's just data / information - either from a database or from an external source.

I don't want to provide links on a public forum, since it might look like advertising, but PM me and I'll send you links to 3 or 4 recent sites that we've done - most people are surprised that they're not Flash, and they show up on Google pretty well (even though some of them are only 7 or 8 page sites).

Diceicle

One more question I'd like to put to the group, the concensus seems to be steer away from Flash and concentrate more on a stylish css/xhtml style site.
I have some small experience in css etc so thats all cool and I dont mind learning, but in the short term would it be beneficial to make use of a CMS system like Joomla ? Or is there another program out there for designing functional, good-looking sites without an indept knowledge of the code?

herya

Depending on the nature of your site you may want to use WordPress or Joomla to run your website. There are plenty of free or very affordable templates (under $15) available for both, http://themeforest.net/ is an excellent resource for these cheap but quality templates. My preference would be for WordPress unless your website is a complex portal system.