Does iFrame content between the iFrame tag produce any conceivable value????
-
One of my clients is using a variety of unbounce pages for their web forms that are held in iFrames in the site template.
This doesn't seem to produce much rank as it ranks very low in the search engines, and doesn't list in SEOMOZ as relevant to the keywords that I'm targetting it for.
I'm thinking it may provide some benefit to replicate the content in between the iFrame tag, i.e. <iframe src="UnbouncePage.html">replicated content here</iframe>.
Any thoughts on this Mozers??
Thankss
-
Hey Tommy, thanks again for your response.
I've read both those pages you linked too (sadly the example links are dead in the SEW site).
From What I can gather on Google:
"This document describes the use of the "NoFrames" tag to provide alternate content. If you use wording such as "This site requires the use of frames," or "Upgrade your browser," instead of providing alternate content on your site, then you'll exclude both search engines and individuals who've disabled frames on their browsers."
This is obviously true, but my point is whether Google will index (or give any value too) replicated content that is in these noFrames tags.
And from SEW:
"Now we have some descriptive text that any search engine can read, not just those that support meta tags. Furthermore, we've created a way for them (and humans) to get inside the site."
In this example the content they are putting in no frames is a reference to an index page, on the same site.
It could well be viewed as a Black hat technique if the NoFrames is abused to try and rank for terms not in the iFrame as it wouldn't be seen by the user but would by Google. But for example it's not like the content has been made the same colour as the background to deliberately hide it, like a proper black hat technique.
Basically "No Frames" is a tag that could be open to abuse, if Google does indeed index the "no frames tag" for anything more than links. so is Google likely to index it, giving the site the benefit of the doubt as it could be used innocently
Thanks again for the links, I just don't think they get to the core of the situation.
-
-
HI Tommy, thanks for your response.
I've read a few posts about iFrames all of them following what that post says about content referenced in an iFrame not providing any value to the page,,, and that obviously makes sense.
I just don't think it answers what I'm getting at. by putting content within the iFrame tags (which is normally used for a message like "you're browser is from the stone age and doesn't support iFrames") then the content is technically on page and can be directly indexed by Google without having to follow the "iFrame src".
Does that make sense?
-
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Page Indexing without content
Hello. I have a problem of page indexing without content. I have website in 3 different languages and 2 of the pages are indexing just fine, but one language page (the most important one) is indexing without content. When searching using site: page comes up, but when searching unique keywords for which I should rank 100% nothing comes up. This page was indexing just fine and the problem arose couple of days ago after google update finished. Looking further, the problem is language related and every page in the given language that is newly indexed has this problem, while pages that were last crawled around one week ago are just fine. Has anyone ran into this type of problem?
Technical SEO | | AtuliSulava1 -
Alt Tags - how important for SEO?
Hi I know alt tags should be on an image, however at the moment I have 23,741 missing on the site, how important are these? It's a big project for someone to update & I need some justification Thanks Mozzers 🙂
Technical SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Devaluing certain content to push better content forward
Hi all, I'm new to Moz, but hoping to learn a lot from it in hopes of growing my business. I have a pretty specific question and hope to get some feedback on how to proceed with some changes to my website. First off, I'm a landscape and travel photographer. My website is at http://www.mickeyshannon.com - you can see that the navigation quickly spreads out to different photo galleries based on location. So if a user was looking for photos from California, they would find galleries for Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, the Redwoods and San Francisco. At this point, there are probably 600-800 photos on my website. At last half of these are either older or just not quite up to par with the quality I'm starting to feel like I should produce. I've been contemplating dumbing down the galleries, and not having it break down so far. So instead of four sub-galleries of California, there would just be one California gallery. In some cases, where there are lots of good images in a location, I would probably keep the sub-galleries, but only if there were dozens of images to work with. In the description of each photo, the exact location is already mentioned, so I'm not sure there's a huge need for these sub-galleries except where there's still tons of good photos to work with. I've been contemplating building a sort of search archive. Where the best of my photos would live in the main galleries, and if a user didn't find what they were looking for, they could go and search the archives for older photos. That way they're still around for licensing purposes, etc. while the best of the best are pushed to the front for those buying fine art prints, etc. These pages for these search archives would probably need to be de-valued somehow, so that the main galleries would be more important SEO-wise. So for the California galleries, four sub-galleries of perhaps 10 images each would become one main California gallery with perhaps 15 images. The other 25 images would be thrown in the search archive and could be searched by keyword. The question I have - does this sound like a good plan, or will I really be killing my site when it comes to SEO by making such a large change? My end goal would be to push my better content to the front, while scaling back a lot of the excess. Hopefully I explained this question well. If not, I can try to elaborate further! Thanks, Mickey
Technical SEO | | msphotography0 -
Issue with duplicate content
Hello guys, i have a question about duplicate content. Recently I noticed that MOZ's system reports a lot of duplicate content on one of my sites. I'm a little confused what i should do with that because this content is created automatically. All the duplicate content comes from subdomain of my site where we actually share cool images with people. This subdomain is actually pointing to our Tumblr blog where people re-blog our posts and images a lot. I'm really confused how all this duplicate content is created and what i should do to prevent it. Please tell me whether i need to "noindex", "nofollow" that subdomain or you can suggest something better to resolve that issue. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | odmsoft0 -
How to avoid duplicate content
Hi, I have a website which is ranking on page 1: www.oldname.com/landing-page But because of legal reason i had to change the name.
Technical SEO | | mikehenze
So i moved the landing page to a different domain.
And 301'ed this landing page to the new domain (and removed all products). www.newname.com/landing-page All the meta data, titles, products are still the same. www.oldname.com/landing-page is still on the same position
And www.newname.com/landing-page was on page 1 for 1 day and is now on page 4. What did i do wrong and how can I fix this?
Maybe remove www.oldname.com/landing-page from Google with Google Webmaster Central or not allow crawling of this page with .htaccess ?0 -
Duplicate Content Issues
We have some "?src=" tag in some URL's which are treated as duplicate content in the crawl diagnostics errors? For example, xyz.com?src=abc and xyz.com?src=def are considered to be duplicate content url's. My objective is to make my campaign free of these crawl errors. First of all i would like to know why these url's are considered to have duplicate content. And what's the best solution to get rid of this?
Technical SEO | | RodrigoVaca0 -
Content Duplication and Canonical Tag settings
Hi all, I have a question regarding content duplication.My site has posted one fresh content in the article section and set canonical in the same page for avoiding content duplication._But another webmaster has taken my post and posted the same in his site with canonical as his site url. They have not given to original source as well._May I know how Google will consider these two pages. Which site will be affected with content duplication by Google and how can I solve this issue?If two sites put canonical tags in there own pages for the same content how the search engine will find the original site which posted fresh content. How can we avoid content duplication in this case?
Technical SEO | | zco_seo0 -
Duplicate Page Content
Hi within my campaigns i get an error "crawl errors found" that says duplicate page content found, it finds the same content on the home pages below. Are these seen as two different pages? And how can i correct these errors as they are just one page? http://poolstar.net/ http://poolstar.net/Home_Page.php
Technical SEO | | RouteAccounts0