__/ [ Stacey ] on Monday 13 March 2006 16:29 \__
> "T.J." <no1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> __/ [ John Bokma ] on Monday 13 March 2006 09:12 \__
>>>> David <seodave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> No, the iFrame content (the HTML page you'll have the image within) is
>>>>> not seen by spiders.
>>>> That's new to me, and I can't think of any reason why it can't be seen,
>>>> since I can write a spider in 10 minutes that has no problem in doing
>>>> I mean:
>>>> <iframe src="pages.html"
>>>> it's not that hard to follow such a thingy, and hence I doubt this
>>>> statement :-D. (WB BTW)
>>> I suspect that David may be right. I have just tested the following page
>>> iframes indexing with Google.
>>> The outcome was negative despite the PageRank 2, which should have been
>>> sufficient to warrant indexing. I think a larger experiment is needed to
>>> confirm this...
>>> Best wishes,
>> Just look at the "cached text" only view of the page.
>> In my view that is one of the most important of the
>> Google features.
>> http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:http://www.classic-literature.co. ...
> Yep, I used this feature a lot to see if Google is picking up something.
> Another would be just do a search
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005 ...
> . It is clearly not picking it up on that page.
Interesting observation, guys. I have just learned something new. I might
advise against the use of iframes in WordPress next time the topic gets
raised and discussed. They used to be some PR dilution issues.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "This sig seemed like a good idea at the time..."
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:10pm up 5 days 9:47, 7 users, load average: 1.09, 0.56, 0.52
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms