SEO and transitionFX

Hi

If I use a transition FX on a block of HTML text (eg.appear on load or slideup on trigger) is that text still readable by search engines and indexed? I note that if Java script is disabled the text remains in its static format. Is this an indication of what is read by a search engine?

Regards Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Richard,

This is correct, Google doesn’t process any CSS or JavaScript when it
reads the page so anything on the page will be seen.

Hope this helps,

Joe

On 9 Nov 2009, at 09:21, Richard Lowther wrote:

Hi

If I use a transition FX on a block of HTML text (eg.appear on load
or slideup on trigger) is that text still readable by search engines
and indexed? I note that if Java script is disabled the text
remains in its static format. Is this an indication of what is read
by a search engine?

Regards Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks Joe , that sounds reassuring. Could I ask a further question? What about text which is behind one of these effects and is hidden at page launch?. Is that still covered by your comforting statement -‘anything on the page will be seen?’ (am I being paranoid - do say)

Regards – Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Google is able to determine if a DIV is visible or not – to an extent
– based on CSS properties. So if you were to put a large DIV full of
spider food (text written to improve your rankings) on your page, and
then use CSS to hide that DIV from regular browsers, they would mark
you down in the Naughty column come re-index time.

Depending on how your page is constructed, you may be using the
unobtrusive scripting model, which is to say that anything which is to
be revealed by JavaScript later on is first hidden using JavaScript at
page load. This means that your peek-a-boo elements would be fully
visible to Google when they come to index (since they wouldn’t run
that JavaScript), and there would be nothing about the elements to
indicate that you were trying to do anything tricky.

If you post a link to an example page (with Output set to More
Readable) I can take a look at the source and tell if your page is
constructed that way.

Walter

On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Richard Lowther wrote:

Thanks Joe , that sounds reassuring. Could I ask a further
question? What about text which is behind one of these effects and
is hidden at page launch?. Is that still covered by your comforting
statement -‘anything on the page will be seen?’ (am I being
paranoid - do say)

Regards – Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks Walter. The site in question is http://www.corneliedejong.nl/

It opens up with the index page on which is a htlm item containing a line of text, a gif arrow and a photo which all slide up on a click (transition FX slide up) Voila behind that more pics and text. The menu is in front of this should Java be off.

But now I have another worry - so that visitors don’t keep having to raise the curtain every time they go back to ‘home’ this links to an exact copy of what is behind the curtain slide up, (and also has FX slow reveal on page load(!) Is this duplicate content = bad? And should I/could I apply a robot.txt to this duplicate page so that the spider strolls on by?

Sorry about the Dutch, probably not good spider food.

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

It looks like your text is all spider-able. The cover is just that –
a layer that appears over the top of the text – and the result is
that Google will see it just fine.

Walter

On Nov 9, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Richard Lowther wrote:

Thanks Walter. The site in question is http://www.corneliedejong.nl/


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks for taking a look Walter. I feel doubly reassured now. I would be interested to hear your views, or someone elses, on the issues (if there are any) of duplicate content and if robot.txt is a valid solution to it.

best wishes

Richard


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options