Once the party’s over, are you leaving customers out in the cold?

Thank you pages typically don’t receive much design or marketing attention. After all, by the time a site visitor sees a Thank You page the chase is over, right? The visitor purchased a widget, filled out the signup form, or downloaded a white paper - in other words, the web site has won, and another conversion stat has been chalked up in the company’s analytics package. Success! Check out our positive ROI!

It’s understandable, really. Most companies have much larger issues to worry about - such as growing their sales and trying to read Google’s mind (or Cuil’s) - than the design and messaging of their Thank You pages. As a result, most Thank You pages are utilitarian afterthoughts that leave customers cold. They become merely a convenient way to track conversions and deliver boring stuff like receipts and download links to the customer. Oh, and maybe some unemotional boilerplate from the company’s “Team” thanking the customer for their transaction. If you’re lucky.

(Read the full article…)

With great predictability, Google’s recent announcement about improved Flash indexing was rapidly followed by numerous client requests for clarification:

“What does this mean for SEO?”

“Do we still have to include HTML text on our Flash pages?”

“What do I need to do differently?”

In response to these and other requests, we’ve compiled the following summary and recommendations to assist our clients (and blog readers) in determining the best course of action relative to Flash, Google and SEO.

Google’s Improved Ability to Index Flash – In a Nutshell:

• Adobe recently developed an optimized Flash player for search engines to use and is collaborating with Google and Yahoo on implementation.
• This means Google can now explore Flash more like a website visitor does.
• This new technology only covers text and links, which is a small part of most Flash content.

Recent Updates Regarding JavaScript:

• Initially, Flash triggered by JavaScript was not going to be indexed because search engine robots typically do not execute JavaScript code (Google’s June 30th announcement).
• However, a recent update to the official Google announcement (circa mid-July) indicates an update has been rolled out to enable support for common JavaScript techniques for embedding Flash, including SWFObject and SWFObject2.
• This means that Flash triggered by JavaScript now has the potential to be crawled.

What Has NOT Changed:

• Images, videos, animations and graphic text in Flash are still NOT indexable.
• This change also does not yet take into account any Meta data or formatting markup in the Flash file.

Flash and SEO Best Practices are STILL Recommended:

• Even considering this announcement, SEO best practices prevail because the amount of text on a page (or in a Flash file) still contributes heavily to the relevance and value search engines ascribe to a page or file.
• In fact, the amount and type of relevant, indexable content on a page is even more important now. The greater the competition, the greater the need for relevance.
• It is still a best practice to follow the “tried and true” Top 3 SEO Strategies for ensuring pages containing Flash are search-engine friendly and accessible (see the “Additional Information” below for more detail).
• These best practice recommendations are based on the fundamental difference between being indexed and ranking well in search results.
• Indexation does not mean improved rankings. A really snazzy site with very little indexable content, is still a really snazzy site with little indexable content, regardless of whether the Flash component can be crawled.

What Developers Should Do Differently with Flash Files:

• Separate URLs for each set of content within the Flash experience is still the best way to ensure content gets indexed (see the “Additional Information” below).
• Separate URLs also contribute to increased link popularity and the opportunity to create optimized Title Tags and Meta Descriptions for each page.
• Because search engines are able to see text within Flash files, any text that is not important to search results (e.g. copyright information, “loading” messages) should be replaced by images to avoid indexation.
• Google’s response to questions regarding the concern over duplicate content is:

Serving the same content in Flash and an alternate HTML version could cause us to find duplicate content. This won’t cause a penalty — we don’t lower a site in ranking because of duplicate content. Be aware, though, that search results will most likely only show one version, not both.

Timing for Implementation:

• Google has acknowledged that the impact of this improved capability will take time to fully propagate through search results.
• There is no word on timing for Yahoo implementation, but Adobe is working with Yahoo on next steps.
• Adobe has not yet made the technology available to MSN, possibly as a result of MSN’s production of the competing Silverlight product.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT FLASH AND SEO:

A) Top 3 SEO Strategies for Flash:

1. Same Page HTML: The simplest search-friendly approach.

Include important text and links from the Flash movie elsewhere on the same page, as plain HTML.

2. Progressive Enhancement: The best future-proofing approach

Using a CSS ‘DIV’ tag, the page developer would define a certain area of the page for this display. Then, using JavaScript, test for whether the Flash plugin is present and (by default) whether JavaScript is enabled. If they are, the Flash code is written to the page with JavaScript.

With this approach, if the visitor does not have either JavaScript or the Flash plugin (like search engines do not), plain HTML will display. Otherwise, the Flash will display. The idea is to make the page friendly to all types of devices. This approach can be extended to encompass text readers, mobile devices, etc., helping to build flexibility into your page coding approach.

Potential drawbacks: possible layout issues with old browsers when the text is very long.

See Bobby van der Sluis’ article for Adobe on developing Flash sites using progressive enhancement for more information.

3. CSS Layers: The third best approach.

This uses CSS to define two layers, one above the other, positioned in the same space on the page. The Flash element is placed in the top layer, while the text and links are placed in the lower layer, hidden by the Flash.

Potential drawbacks: possible display issues with older browsers; does not add the flexibility of a full progressive enhancement approach; a slight chance that this may be viewed as an attempt to ’spam’ search engines - however, using this method in a conservative manner is unlikely to cause any penalty.

B) The importance of having separate URLs for each phase of the Flash experience:

Excerpt below taken from the Search Engine Land post by Vanessa Fox:

…[T]he searcher experience is better served by Flash implementations that provide a unique URL for each set of content. Some Flash implementations dynamically load text as the user interacts with the application, but the URL remains the same. In this scenario, Googlebot can now follow those interactions (in a limited way) and if the URL doesn’t change, then all content that is dynamically loaded as the interactions progress is associated with a single URL.

…This means that if the content that is dynamically loaded into the Flash application from the fifth interaction matches a searcher query, that Flash application may be served in the search results. But when the searcher clicks over to that result, the content won’t be found on the page. The searcher will have to interact with the application until that content is loaded. Searchers may instead feel frustrated and abandon the page.

For the best user experience and higher conversion rates from search, Flash developers should be careful to avoid this situation by creating distinct URLs for each piece of content. This implementation helps the Flash site be more viral as well, as users can email, Digg, and otherwise share the content more easily.

Google acknowledges this scenario may not be an ideal searcher experience, but points out that other non-HTML file formats such as PDFs have the same limitations. When a searcher clicks through the Google search results to a PDF file, the content that matched the query may not be on the first page of that PDF and the searcher has to scroll through the file to find the desired content.

C) Further Reading about Google, Flash and SEO:

1. Official Google Webmaster Central Blog June 30 Announcement (now includes an update to the original announcement)
2. Summary and explanation of announcement from Search Engine Land by Vanessa Fox
3. Andy Beal’s post on Marketing Pilgrim cautioning against all-out Flash adoption
4. Erick Schonfeld’s post on TechCrunch includes a good point: “Becoming visible is one thing, actually ranking highly is another”
5. Adobe Developers resource web site – clearly covers the use of the “Progressive Enhancement” approach

As I’m sure many of you already know, Google made a much-appreciated change to their Keyword Tool last week. Now, Google’s keyword tool provides actual search volume numbers, as opposed to the green bars you’ve seen in the past that represented low, average or high search volume.

One of our first questions upon hearing this news, was whether the search volume reported out by Google was based on the exact keyword or based on the volume for the keyword plus all of its Phrase and Broad Match iterations.

As it turns out, the tool allows you to pull search volume for all 3 of Google’s match types. For example, we entered ‘kids cell phones’ into the tool and searched it 3 separate times, each time changing the pull-down for match types. The data Google provided:

What a great feature! 

Also important to note, is that the stats reported are based on the number of searches performed in Google and the Google Search Network only. Therefore, the 4,400 approximate searches you see above for the exact keyword ‘kids cell phones’ does not include the number of searches performed in other engines such as Yahoo or MSN.

The ability to pull search volume by match type is a unique feature that makes a very helpful addition to Google’s already-robust suite of tools for search engine marketers!