Re: Displaying product pictures (frames or new windows?)
by "Steve burrill" <steve.burrill(at)celtic-web.co.uk>
|
Date: |
Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:45:34 +0100 |
To: |
"Bert Doorn" <bert(at)betterwebdesign.com.au>, <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org> |
References: |
texas gte bdoorn |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
What if your pages also contain NOFRAMES content as well?
----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Doorn <bdoorn(at)iinet.net.au>
To: <hwg-basics(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Displaying product pictures (frames or new windows?)
> G'day
>
> > They can't handle frames.
>
> It's true (as far as I know) that most search engines will not index
> individual frames
>
> >You won't get indexed or spidered
>
> In my experience however, the above statement is not always true.
>
> > They ban framed sites.
>
> My site uses frames. It's listed in many search engines/catalogues,
including
> Yahoo (which accounts for about 80% of the search engine hits to my site).
> Maybe I was lucky?
>
> >We all know how well banners work.
>
> I'll agree with you there. Banner ads are (generally) a waste of space.
In
> the three years I've been using the internet, I may have clicked through
about
> 6 of them... I wouldn't have a bar of putting a "link exchange" setup on
a
> commercial site either.
>
> >if SE's tell you they ban frames - believe them.
>
> Which SE's ban frames?
>
> > I don't do frames anymore. Its not up to discussion with me. Won't do
it!
> > Just say no.
>
> Personal choice. Feel free to say NO to my site - no hard feelings. I
think
> the "frames or not" question is a bit like the IE vs Netscape debate (but
> that's another can of worms which we'll not open up here :-)
>
> Regards
> --
> Bert Doorn, Web Developer
> http://www.BetterWebDesign.com.au/
HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters @ IWA