Hi everyone,
Continuing with the Eric Enge and John Mueller interview, we analyse various circumstances that give rise to showing a certain piece of content to Googlebot and different content to users. This can be done inadvertently by a webmaster or with a view to manipulating the search engines. John Mueller from Google confirms that it is the intent behind the action when fraudulent activity is detected on a website.

Eric asks about the use of Javascript for adding tracking parameters to a URL (as in the previous post where cloaking was discussed) when a user clicks on a link on the site and whether this would be a case of treating users and Googlebot the same way.

John says that when a user clicks, there is something happening on the site. Search engines do not execute Javascript when they crawl a site. So, the site has to function irrespective of whether Javascript is enabled or not. He goes on to state that it is something similar to using AJAX on a normal HTML website.

If a user has Javascript enabled, her experience on the site will be enhanced. If she does not have Javascript enabled, she will still be able to browse through the site because of the standard HTML code. This is the case for search engine bots. Though the Javascript enabled user can see different URLs when using AJAX components, it is still a very normal scenario.

Eric brings up the question of  multivariate testing in a situation where a site is testing four different landing pages for a certain ad. They are changing the call to action, the position of the logo and banner on the landing page and testing variations of the body copy by using synonyms etc. John Mueller does not see a problem as long as the intent of the site owner is to find the best solution for his users and the content displayed is more or less the same.

It is the same when a designer creates an attractive menu with Javascript and graphics to enhance the user experience on the site. There is also an alternate menu in static HTML residing behind the nice graphic menu. As long as they match up, it is fine. Even if the menu items have relevant alt tags, it is still OK. But if the Services menu item has an alt tag that says – Buy our custom designed watches available in all leading shopping chains, that is a blatant violation and Google will not view it in good light.

If there is a similarity in the content but is not identical word for word, then it comes down to intent and the circumstances surrounding it. Again, it is wise to adopt the “err on the side of caution” policy and have the content identical as it is not worth deceiving the search engines and/or the users. John gives an example where there is an image of a house and it is linked to the Home page. The alt text for this graphic could say somehting like – Go to home page and this is perfectly valid.

Eric raises the use of sIFR or Scalable Inman Flash Replacement technique. siFR uses text input to render what is shown in Flash. It is guaranteed to be identical. John says that there is a huge potential for abuse of this technique.

When a website with a complete Flash based interface has a lot of different HTML pages all on the same URL hidden behind it, there is no way that the content displayed by the Flash site on that page is going to be identical to the ten hidden pages. The solution would be to leave the basics in HTML and retain the majority of the content in Flash.

In this case, intent apart, John says two issues come into play. Firstly, search engines can crawl and index Flash files and they can display this content in the search results. Secondly,  a lot of devices are not Flash enabled. If a Flash driven site is accessed by number of mobile phone users, they cannot see the Flash content. If the HTML content does not not match with the Flash content, then a disappointing user experience will see them leaving the site in no time.

Eric zeroes in on the issue of html content matching with Flash content by citing the example of a man driving a fast car on a German autobahn. Flash is used for a high quality user visual experience. Flash does not narrate the course of the drive. But the HTML content behind it states – On a fine day,  a man gets into his expensive car and goes for a drive on the autobahn. The text is essentially conveying the graphical experience in words.

John sees no problem in this as the intent is fine and the content matches the visual experience. Further, the user experience is vital. If a user sees the above HTML definition in the search results and clicks on it to find the same visual experience of what is described in words, it clearly matches the user’s expectations.

Stay tuned for a couple of more interesting issues arising out of this interview  in forthcoming posts. At Netconcepts, we adopt best practice industry standards and practice white hat SEO . Our clients’ sites have no problems when it comes to getting indexed in the major search engines.