HTML pages inside a FRAME

[MrRoy]

Hi

I have a website which I dint submit to Google till now. The home page of my site is designed in such a way that whenever user wants to go to the other pages from the home page itself, the respective html page is shown inside the "frame" right in the home page.

Now the problem is "I have given Title,meta tag for the home page as well as the other html pages of my site".

From the user point of view, people can only see the home page title and meta tag bcz the other pages r shown right in the home page inside a frame keeping the home page title and meta tags intact.

My query is "Do I need to submit individual pages of my website in Google" or "Google will automatically retrieve the other html pages from my site"

???????


Regards

Roy

[Dan0]

There's no point in submitting anything but your home page. There's also no point in submitting your home page, but you can do so if it makes you feel better.

Doing your whole site with frames will make it difficult for Google or any other search engine to index the content.

[Zinger]

Hi Dan0,

I know SEOs recommend avoiding frames but can you tell me exactly why?

The reason I ask is because I have seen plenty of framed pages indexed in Google. Eg when clicking on the 'cached' link, you see the actual page indexed without the frame. It has keywords highlighted so must not have a problem.

Also if you open the page without the frames you can see the PR value.

Is it only Google that doesn't seem to have a problem?

I've heard people say over and over again how terrible frames are and so I have avoided using them without really knowing why. Please explain. Thanks.

[mncsc]

Originally posted by MrRoy
Now the problem is "I have given Title,meta tag for the home page as well as the other html pages of my site".

From the user point of view, people can only see the home page title and meta tag bcz the other pages r shown right in the home page inside a frame keeping the home page title and meta tags intact.
You could also put some text in <noframes> tags so the spiders, and humans running a non-frame capable browser (<3%?), can see a parallel to the framed page's content.

[polarmate]

Originally posted by Dan0
Doing your whole site with frames will make it difficult for Google or any other search engine to index the content.
Dan,
Isn't that a thing of the past?
There are plenty of examples where entire web sites done in frames have been indexed. SEO Guy's for example.

[Dan0]

A few points:

1. When you see framed content showing up in Google, it's because there was a link somewhere to that file, probably on a site map, but search engines don't always crawl the site map, much less follow the links on it.

2. Alan Perkins has shared a simple solution, 'self referencing framesets,' that lets you have framed content for the frame-enabled, without losing the ease of indexing:
http://www.searchmechanics.com/learn/srf/

3. I am also personally biased... Like many people who use the web, I hate frames unless they're done really well. If your framed content pages don't load the frameset, anyone who does find one through a search engine will be unable to see your navigation.

I didn't say it's impossible to get a framed site indexed, it's just difficult.

[MrRoy]

Thanks to all of uuuuuuuu

The problem is I have already designed my site with frames.

So should I now submit the url in Google ????

Or Should I submit the individual html pages????

:confused:

[Mertu]

To expand upon what was hinted at earlier...

It doesn't really matter that much. Google doesn't trust URLs that have been submitted because most of them are spam/junk that wouldn't get indexed because they aren't linked by anyone else.

Submitting the site to DMOZ, GoGuides, JoeAnt, and any specific topic directories would serve you better than using the Google URL submission. An outside link to the site is basically independent verification that your site is legitimate.

So, submitting the individual pages to Google via the Add URL may get them indexed eventually, but don't count on them showing up too highly in the rankings until the main page has got some external links pointing to it. (In which case Google should find the pages anyway.)

[polarmate]

Originally posted by Mertu
Google doesn't trust URLs that have been submitted because most of them are spam/junk that wouldn't get indexed because they aren't linked by anyone else.
GoogleGuy was over in WMW land telling folks to submit using Google's submit url page
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/11533-12-25.htm#msg299

[Dan0]

All they want is the home page, though - they can find the rest by crawling the site.

[Matt B]

Originally posted by polarmate
Dan,
Isn't that a thing of the past?
There are plenty of examples where entire web sites done in frames have been indexed. SEO Guy's for example.

Thank you, polarmate.

Using frames instead of a single HTML page layout takes about 2-3x as long to create, layout, and optimize. A lot of practice, trial and error, and hard work goes into creating, marketing, and managing a framed website. In my research, I have found that 9 out of 9 framed sites are usually done poorly. :D

Most of our sites are framed, and many people don't even realize it until they get to a page with extended content that requires scrolling. To add to the challenge, most of our sites are database-driven, but we still have no problem getting entire sites indexed, useable, and formatted for search-engine friendliness.

But, if you want to do it, and do it right, it takes more than technical savvy. And, many more answers than I could possibly give in a few moments (or for free.) It takes a lot of time, research, design, usability, SEO, programming, and common sense to pull it all together.

[Dan0]

The issues with search engines and frames aren't really any different now than they ever were. What's a "thing of the past" is the widespread belief that search engines can't index framed content. They can, if you know what you're doing when you put the site together. But it's not simple, and it involves more work. The self-referencing frameset is the simplest solution.

Matt, your site is a good example of what can be done with frames, but also the limitations. If I want to bookmark several pages on your site and revisit them later, I can't do that. When I get lost, there's no visual cue of where I am because the navigation elements never change. If I want to go back to a place I've been before, I have to remember the path.

Like I said, as a user I have a big bias against frames. I might not notice them when I look at your home page, but once I've dug into the site a little, it's a different story. As someone who has spent hundreds of hours watching people surf and recording what they do, I wouldn't use frames on a site unless there were no alternative.

[Matt B]

All very good points, Dan, I appreciate your examples.

There is some give and take when making the decisions. So far, we have evaluated many alternatives and constantly test new ways to build the framesets and frame-fixes (javascript, self-referencing, etc.)

The bookmark issue is one in the works, it seems to be the main issue, however, by creating new framesets for each major (or minor) section, it brings the user closer the info they marked - not perfect, but it keeps the sub-section links in view.

[Dan0]

Matt:

Do the global navigation links at the bottom of each page in the framed content help you tie things together for users, or are they more of a 'spider food' kind of thing?

Dan

[Matt B]

Dan,

They are there for main two reasons:

If a user finds the content frame through the SE's and has JavaScript disabled (rendering a framefix useless), the links have the target tag which open up the link inside the desired frameset. This way the user isn't left on a frame "island." The target tag is critical in every framed site link to reinforce the navigation and keep everything ordered.

Secondly, it's just common sense to reinforce graphic navigation with text links.

The benefit of it being spider food is secondary, actually an afterthought, because we were using the text links for those other reasons years ago.