Thanks for popping by – this certainly caused a lot of contention all over the internet. Lots of people could technically find themselves in hot water if Google goes on a crusade with this.

Thanks for dropping by, rgds
Richard

The debate you’re having is exactly what I’ve been going through with my clients, and the creative agencies supplying them. When SWFObject first came to my attention, I was skeptical because of the hidden content angle. But arguments such as Ken’s ultimately won me over – I simply had no concrete leg to stand on, no feedback from Google on the issue.

Then I attended that SEMNE session, and posed the question to Dan/Google, and he was pretty clear about it. He even addressed one of Ken’s points: he said that Google always tries to analyze the intent of the content itself, and not the technical tricks that may be involved. However, in this case, he said that he could not guarantee that this would be the case with SWFObject. It might end-up being one of those tricks that is penalized across the board.

So yes, I opened Pandora’s Box with that question, because now I’ve had to go back to clients/agencies I’d signed-off on, and tell them that they can’t use SWFobject.

Yes, they have been shooting the messenger :/

Hope you’re enjoying Thailand.

All I can assume is that they [Google] wouldn’t take issue with it unless it was being misused. As an SEO I see my role as requiring to be up-to-date with any official pronouncements. I don’t think anyone is advising the removal of Flash (or unobtrusive Flash) from their sites. The advice is simply to take care that certain text replacement implementations are open to abuse and might be penalised (BTW the penalty I imagine they would apply would be to ignore the content of the replaced node).

I agree whole-heartedly that Google should have a better means to detect misuse. Unfortunately it’s very clear that they cannot handle Flash. I don’t make the rules… but I do try to follow them.

The other thing that I would mention is that the case discussed above also rendered the HTML text invisible by using visibility:hidden;. That to me is the bigger mistake.

Best rgds (from Thaiand!)
Richard

I think the problem is that as of yet they haven’t been able to read Flash files with any amount of accuracy.

The point I’m trying to make is that any serious SEO firm (and especially those that are at the high end of the market) should be aware of the official lines on the techniques they use. I think they have a duty of care to their clients to ensure that they do not engage in techniques which could harm rather than help their clients’ sites.

In this case the SEO firm in question either don’t have a clue or simply don’t care as long as they collect their fee.

Rgds
Richard

In the case I discuss SWFObject is being used to replace textnodes rather than simply to insert a Flash movie. That, I believe, is where the use of SWFObject may cross into very unsteady ground.

I imagine that Google’s use of the tool doesn’t involve emptying large testnodes within the DOM?

Best rgds, and thanks for commenting
Richard

I think I have to start writing shorter posts. Only really looked at it now and it’s bloody long. SIFR should be cool. The other technique looks like it’s heading for the SEO dustbin…

I heard back from mutual friend on that B issue – will drop in on my return. Cant wait TBH.

Best rgds
Richard