[SWFObject] SWFObject VS Google Quality Guidelines

[Rick Lecoat]

Just to push this question on one step (and in so doing I realise that
I'm straying off forum-topic *slightly*):

I've duplicated the whole of my flash site's text in the "flashcontent"
div (which sits half way down my page, with a 100% width). And that is
great except that if somebody doesn't have flash, the page looks rather
a mess, as that text (being a thousand words or so with nice big
headers) spills out below the bottom edge of the "flashcontent" div and
pours down the page. That is correct behaviour given how my
"flashcontent" div is positioned but it's ugly for non-flash users --
even if they only have to see it until they get the plugin.

So I thought of making the overflow setting for the "flashcontent" div
overflow:scroll which would let them scroll through the text with a
viewport the same size as the flash movie would be -- much nicer except
that the browsers insist on putting scroll bars on the div even when the
content has been replaced. Ugly again, and in this case it actually
messes with the flash-savvy layout, so that's a non-starter.

My last idea was to give the div overflow:hidden. This way I can simply
have the "Go and get Flash" link visible in the div area with all the
rest of the content -- the text duplicated from the flash movie --
hidden out of the way below the bottom edge of the div.

My worry is that Google's no hidden text policy might take offence and
ban the site, even though its intentions are noble and not spammy.
Searching through various SEO forums has not unearthed any consensus of
opinion, so I though I'd try you fellows. I know this is more of an SEO
issue, but it has its roots in SWFObject, so hopefully can still be
considered more or less on-topic(?) 

Does anybody have any semi-concrete knowledge in this matter? FWIW the
CSS that sets the div's overflow is in an external stylesheet, not
written directly to the page. Maybe this would help the overflow:hidden
escape Google's notice?

Many thanks in advance.
-- 
Rick Lecoat

--
Original message:
Received from Jeremy Nicoll on 17/8/06 at 18:08

>
>    The content is visible to all users who do not have Flash installed 
>and/or do not have JavaScript enabled.  Therefore, the content is still 
>visible by users and does not violate the Google terms.  There are 
>millions of pages out there that employ similar methods using a 
>so-called Web 2.0 interface, and they are not banned from Google.  They 
>are only concerned with things like making a link invisible or 
>delivering content which is /only/ for Google (by doing a bot check on 
>the server script, for instance and delivering different content).
>
>--
>Jeremy Nicoll
>
>> Subject:
>> [SWFObject] SWFObject VS Google Quality Guidelines
>> From:
>> Pablo Garayzábal <pablo at dinamik.es>
>> Date:
>> Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:51:52 +0200
>> To:
>> <swfobject at lists.deconcept.com>
>>
>> To:
>> <swfobject at lists.deconcept.com>
>> CC:
>> 'Gonzalo Riera' <gonzalo.riera at skydivelillo.com>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  
>>
>> As previously discussed here, another advantage of using SWFObject is 
>> that you can place html content inside the div layers so that it will 
>> be read by search spiders but won't be visible to the visitors.  (It's 
>> replaced by a swf file).
>>
>>  
>>
>> For example
>>
>> <div id="myLayer">
>>
>>             Here is a text with keywords, links etc, just for search 
>> engine optimization.
>>
>> </div>
>>
>> <script>
>>
>> var fo=new SWFObject(....);
>>
>>             fo.write("myLayer");
>>
>> </script>
>>
>>  
>>
>> So, If you do this, the fact is that you are creating content just for 
>> the search engines, and that it is invisible or hidden for the visitors.
>>
>> Doing this seems to break the two first rules of Google Quality 
>> guidelines:
>>
>>  
>>
>> As you can see in this link:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769#quality
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Quality guidelines - basic principles*
>>
>>     * Make pages for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your
>>       users or present different content to search engines than you
>>       display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."
>>     * ...
>>
>> *Quality guidelines - specific guidelines*
>>
>>     * Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
>>     * Don't employ cloaking or sneaky redirects.
>>     * ...
>>
>> Placing content inside the SWFObject target layers can be considered 
>> as "cloaking"? ...or as hiding text or links?  ...both?
>>
>>  
>>
>> These are the FIRST two things google claims to be avoided.
>>
>>  
>>
>> So... what do you think? 
>>
>>  
>>
>> A first approach can be: "Don't place content for google, just a 
>> message for people who don't have flash installed."  Ok but... what is 
>> the difference? Can google see the difference?
>>
>>  
>>
>> As Geoff said in a recent post: Try to search for this in google: 
>> "This text is replaced by the Flash movie."
>>
>> This text is the one used in Geoff's examples, and a lot of people 
>> have just copied and pasted it in their pages, so google has about 
>> *5.140.000 *results, so it must be aware of this issue now (...or not?)
>>
>>  
>>
>> Does google recognize semantics? Is it allowing the "This text is 
>> replaced by the Flash movie.", but will penalize other messages like, 
>> for example, "The best IT company, IT services, consulting",?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Pablo.
>>
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SWFObject mailing list
>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
>>   
>
>_______________________________________________
>SWFObject mailing list
>SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com