Re: noframes section

again my competitor for the serp silver jewellery - inspirals .co.uk - does
that and is no1



mark
"Gerhard Bürgmann" <gerhard.buergmann (AT) utanet (DOT) at> wrote

If I use a site with frames I need to use the noframes
section for displaying content for the search engines.
Isn't that a legal way to display different content
to the users and the search engines?

Gerhard

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:54:21 +0100, "mark | r" <markrush (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

again my competitor for the serp silver jewellery - inspirals .co.uk - does
that and is no1

They don't do anything bad though. They don't say the site is about
Kylie when it's really about ball-bearings. So there is no ill-intent.
They don't con anybody.
Another fine example here of what crap a lot of SEOs talk about the
certainty of getting banned for various offences.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--

Big Bill wrote:

Another fine example here of what crap a lot of SEOs talk about the
certainty of getting banned for various offences.

I'd say that SEO talk always is or at least should be taken as probability
rather than certainty. Most of advises you'd get from SEO professionals
are common sense guesses. You'd take a problem and think: “would it make
sense for search engines to disallow this if they want the search result
page only show relevant links?". if the answer is "definitely yes", then
the SEO specialist would say: "NEVER do that!!!". If the answer is
"maybe", then you'd get a professional advice that would sound like "you
might consider not doing it". There is simply no way to test search
engines' behavior because by the time you collect statistically
considerable results, the algorithm might have changed already.


Sincerely,
Dmitri
http://www.1-script.com/install/
Check out my CGI scripts installation offer
-------------------------------------


##-----------------------------------------------##
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archive
http://www.1-script.com/forums
no-spam read and post WWW interface to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 6888 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:54:21 +0100, "mark | r" <markrush (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

again my competitor for the serp silver jewellery - inspirals .co.uk -
does
that and is no1

They don't do anything bad though. They don't say the site is about
Kylie when it's really about ball-bearings. So there is no ill-intent.
They don't con anybody.
Another fine example here of what crap a lot of SEOs talk about the
certainty of getting banned for various offences.

i disagree the noframes content does not represent the frames content thats
the point of noframes!

not to show a completeley different set of content...

mark

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:36:01 +0100, "mark | r" <markrush (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

"Big Bill" <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
newsafc811qcnhkrvnlb440puffjlngnsp3cj (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:54:21 +0100, "mark | r" <markrush (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

again my competitor for the serp silver jewellery - inspirals .co.uk -
does
that and is no1

They don't do anything bad though. They don't say the site is about
Kylie when it's really about ball-bearings. So there is no ill-intent.
They don't con anybody.
Another fine example here of what crap a lot of SEOs talk about the
certainty of getting banned for various offences.

i disagree the noframes content does not represent the frames content thats
the point of noframes!

not to show a completeley different set of content...

mark

I don't say it has to be an exact duplicate of the framed content to
be "legal". rather that it has to be broadly representative.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that watches the river flow...
--