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?
-
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 -
NoIndex tag, canonical tag or automatically generated H1's for automatically generated enquiry pages?
What would be better for automatically generated accommodation enquiry pages for a travel company? NoIndex tag, canonical tag, automatically generated H1's or another solution? This is the homepage: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/ You would enquire from a page like this: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/accommodation/sunshine-coast/twin-waters/the-sebel-twin-waters This is the enquiry form: https://www.discoverqueensland.com.au/accommodation-enquiry.php?name=The+Sebel+Twin+Waters®ion_name=Sunshine+Coast
Technical SEO | | Kim_Lazaro0 -
Pricing value pages
We have the main pricing page here: https://www.eginnovations.com/product/pricing Then depending on what you click, you'll be taken to the appropriate form on one of these pages: https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=audit https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=saas https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=perpetual https://www.eginnovations.com/product/request-quote?pricetype=subscription How should I handle these? Noindex, follow? Set a canonical? I keep getting notifications that these are duplicate content, but it's just a way to keep the form fills organized. Thanks for your help!
Technical SEO | | eGInnovations1 -
Unique Contextual Content
Let's say you have a page on your website which displays the current discounts available for iPhones. The page is a list of deals with buttons to reveal a promo code. Would adding contextual content to these pages improve rankings? If the main keywords are already on the page, such as "Save 20% on iPhone 5 with this great iPhone coupon code" where iPhone coupon code is the target keyword. Does it still make sense to put 500+ words of contextual content on that page, even when the content isn't really something the viewer cares about? I've noticed websites doing this, and ranking well. I wanted to know if this is a significant ranking factor or just a coincidence.
Technical SEO | | poke10 -
HREFLANG No Return Tag Error
Keep getting WMT no return tag error. Also got an email today on this issue. Here are a couple pages showing up in the error report: Originating URL: /hawaii/kauai-real-estate/ Alternate URL: /jp/hawaii/kauai-real-estate/ Here are the hreflang tags for each page: /hawaii/kauai-real-estate/ /jp/hawaii/kauai-real-estate/ The only thing I can see is the hreflang= is at the end of the snippet but doesn't seem like that would matter. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | SoulSurfer80 -
Duplicate content
Hello mozzers, I have an unusual question. I've created a page that I am fully aware that it is near 100% duplicate content. It quotes the law, so it's not changeable. The page is very linkable in my niche. Is there a way I can build quality links to it that benefit my overall websites DA (i'm not bothered about the linkable page being ranked) without risking panda/dupe content issues? Thanks, Peter
Technical SEO | | peterm21 -
Mobile website content optimisation
Hi there, someone I know is going to put their site to a mobile version with a mobile sub domain (m.). I have recommended responsive but for now this is their only way forward to cope with the 21st April update by Google. My question is what is the best practice for content, as its a different url will there need to be a canonical tag in to stop duplication and thus being penalised from the Google panda update? Any advice much appreciated.
Technical SEO | | tdigital0 -
Multiple URLs and Dup Content
Hi there, I know many people might ask this kind of question, but nevertheless .... 🙂 In our CMS, one single URL (http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/) has been produced nearly 9000 times with strings like this: http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/$12203/$12204/$12204/ and this http://www.careers4women.de/news/artikel/206/$12203/$12204/$12205/ and so on and so on... Today, I wrote our IT-department to either a) delete the pages with the "strange" URLs or b) redirect them per 301 onto the "original" page. Do you think this was the best solution? What about implementing the rel=canonical on these pages? Right now, there is only the "original" page in the Google index, but who knows? And I don't want users on our site to see these URLs, so I thought deleting them (they exist only a few days!) would be the best answer... Do you agree or have other ideas if something like this happens next time? Thanx in advance...
Technical SEO | | accessKellyOCG0