“Google kicked off my Bludomain site”
October 10, 2008 by admin
Filed under Advertising, Blogs, Search Engines, Websites, Wedding Marketing
Recently while exploring some discussion boards I came across a few threads like this one on Photo.net having to do with Google dropping Bludomain websites from their search results index. I came across similar threads on Flickr and the FM forum. Unfortunately the problem is not Bludomain’s, it can be any other similarly developed Flash site regardless of provider. The problem is based in the usage of Flash for an entire website.
A picture may be worth a 1,000 words, but not to a search engine. Google and other search engines only work with words. A Flash based site, like Bludomain, is basically just animated pictures. Take a look at the splash page “page source” of most Flash sites, even the most visually appealing. What you will commonly see, besides the page parameters, image calls and scripts, are the Meta tags related to title, description and keywords (a particularly useless tag) and a little text like “Skip intro”, “Website”, “Blog” (terms that very few brides-to-be will use in the wedding planning) and a note that Flash is needed to view the site. This lack of meaningful text content combined with scripts to launch your main site, which Google will not follow, is what leads to poor search ranking and being “kicked off Google”. I have written more in depth previously regarding the weakness of Flash sites’ search engine optimization.
Many photographers and other wedding professionals have discovered the internet marketing power of a blog, and added a blog to gain some internet recognition. A few, like Jessica Claire, have maximized that “blog power” for use as their entire website by creating a blogsite. And this is why I have spent the last few months developing a low priced blogsite for photographers and other wedding professionals (www.ProPhotoBlogsite.com) that can be easily managed by the site owner.
The important take away here is don’t be upset with Google or Bludomain or Flash, they are what they are are, don’t expect them to be different. By recognizing their nature and strengths it becomes easy to see how to use them combined with other options to dramatically improve internet results. As a New England sailor once told me, “don’t argue with the wind, just adjust your sail”.
There is a great little article about Wedding Blogs over at PDN right now – http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3ic87e02f8b99ce3de1791737384dd252f
Eric, Thanks for the info!
Another option here is to have a full HTML website in the background. While google still doesn’t read flash, it can read the HTML site. We’re in the process of making one over on our site now. The absolute hardest part still though is having google index the index page first. Even a savvy sitemap won’t always cure this problem.
- Spencer Clark
Hey Marc,
That’s what I’ve been saying for years & many people laughed in my face & thought that flash is the way to go, but the bottom line is – it really isn’t from a search engine point of view.
The other thing that we did was create a blog site a few years ago as we recognized the change in how we present our work. When JC launched her blogsite, I think that is really paving the way for more & more people to come on board what is the next evolution of websites. More interactivity.
What’s nice is that I no longer have to inquire web designers & companies like Blu to laugh in my face & tell me that is a silly idea!
Cheers!
David Esquire
Esquire Photography
http://www.esquirephotography.com
david@esquirephotography.com
It amazes me that despite all the information out there showing the problems with indexing flash, people continue to build and use flash websites. Even the duplicate html site doesn’t fix the flash problem, and duplicate html sites have other issues in their use.
The old adage of “if you build it they will come” doesn’t apply to websites.
Hi Spencer, Appreciate your comment. I agree that is an option and I have used that in the past. The problem with two websites ( a Flash version and an HTML version) is the ADDITIONAL COST of maintaining TWO websites. Not to mention that standard HTML websites don’t have the easy ability for the siteowner to update/change the site, and the built-in SEO and syndication features that a WordPress blogsite has. At this time in the development of the WWW if someone wants to use Flash to display their images, I think the best and lowest cost option is to “wrap” their Flash galleries within a blogsite. Like the Kertesz – Pro Photo Blogsite can.
Flash site is obviously not optimal for search engines, but a simple splash page that includes keyword-rich text can greatly help rank in search engines while maintaining a Flash site, for example most templates offered by Blu Domain. Check out the photographer search engine optimization guide for more on the topic, which talks about splash pages among other ranking techniques specific to Blu Domain sites.
Zach, There was a time when I might have agreed with you, but in the reality of relevant and useful search ranking … not so much. You are talking about one landing page (splash page) with some text. The stahdard Flash links are action scripts which many search bots do not effectively crawl. So you are left with a virtual stand alone landing page with at most a few paragraphs of content. That may move a site’s search page presence up from 100 to 50 (a relatively great advance), but it is still 5 pages deep from most peoples search users initial page of Google results. So the the “advance” will be inconsequential in bankable impact. It will put you ahead of some other Bludomain splash pages in search results, but not enough ahead to get you on the first or second page of results. And the first page in organic search results is MONEY. My advice is don’t spend money on SEO even for Bludomain and other popular Flash based websites for photographers SEO consultant can show how it will result in greater payback. In most cases SEO for Flash sites that is not based in sound site structure or content is useless. Less than useless when you factor in the time and expense.