<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 3 questions about Google &#8211; Adobe Flash indexing &amp; SEO</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socrata.com/2008/07/07/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socrata.com/uncategorized/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/</link>
	<description>Making Data Social - Open Data Services for Government</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:03:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lady J talks</title>
		<link>http://www.socrata.com/uncategorized/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/#comment-7016</link>
		<dc:creator>Lady J talks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.socrata.com/index.php/2008/07/07/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/#comment-7016</guid>
		<description>Thank you so much for making this list of articles.  I surely will pass them on.  There has been a real push lately for flash content which I think is great but truly there are sites like MicroSoft office live sites that do not play with javascript.  Thank heaven that many of the sites I build things with have all the different variation and make a code that plays well with my chosen ad sites.  Will be very interesting to see how this plays out.  It&#039;s nice to think that perhaps I will finally be able to get my little diddis to play with out having to change the code for so many.  I hope that&#039;s the goal here in the end.

ps.  anyone know some free soft ware that can easily change videos over to youTubes format...LJ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you so much for making this list of articles.  I surely will pass them on.  There has been a real push lately for flash content which I think is great but truly there are sites like MicroSoft office live sites that do not play with javascript.  Thank heaven that many of the sites I build things with have all the different variation and make a code that plays well with my chosen ad sites.  Will be very interesting to see how this plays out.  It&#8217;s nice to think that perhaps I will finally be able to get my little diddis to play with out having to change the code for so many.  I hope that&#8217;s the goal here in the end.</p>
<p>ps.  anyone know some free soft ware that can easily change videos over to youTubes format&#8230;LJ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.socrata.com/uncategorized/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/#comment-7017</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.socrata.com/index.php/2008/07/07/top-3-questions-about-google-adobe-flash-indexing-seo/#comment-7017</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m thankful for that sixth finger! :)

As for the three questions above, here&#039;s my speculation:
1. I believe it will be ranked lower. It&#039;s generally accepted that semantic markup in HTML helps your ranking. Text within a flash file won&#039;t have such markup, so everything within the flash will have equal ranking. It wouldn&#039;t make sense for it to be ranked as highly as the HTML, therefore.

2. I did see mention that while google would index externally linked files from within the flash, it would treat them as separate assets. I assumed this to mean they would (also?) show up in the search results as separate filetypes. I actually had assumed .swfs would show up like this too (there is already filetype:swf available in the advanced search), not as completely integrated as some seem to assume they will be.

3. I have NO IDEA how deep-linking will be achieved, I&#039;m really interested to see how it is managed. I don&#039;t see a way for a search engine spider to determine the appropriate deep-links simple from engaging within the .swf. Perhaps sitemaps are about to become even more important??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m thankful for that sixth finger! :)</p>
<p>As for the three questions above, here&#8217;s my speculation:<br />
1. I believe it will be ranked lower. It&#8217;s generally accepted that semantic markup in HTML helps your ranking. Text within a flash file won&#8217;t have such markup, so everything within the flash will have equal ranking. It wouldn&#8217;t make sense for it to be ranked as highly as the HTML, therefore.</p>
<p>2. I did see mention that while google would index externally linked files from within the flash, it would treat them as separate assets. I assumed this to mean they would (also?) show up in the search results as separate filetypes. I actually had assumed .swfs would show up like this too (there is already filetype:swf available in the advanced search), not as completely integrated as some seem to assume they will be.</p>
<p>3. I have NO IDEA how deep-linking will be achieved, I&#8217;m really interested to see how it is managed. I don&#8217;t see a way for a search engine spider to determine the appropriate deep-links simple from engaging within the .swf. Perhaps sitemaps are about to become even more important??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

