JeffCroft.com

06.12.2007 // 12 CommentsThe-Flash-Files.com

Comments

1. 001 // Baxter // 06.12.2007 // 2:24 PM

   Ironically, I nearly missed half the content because I didn’t have my browser appropriately sized and there was no scroll bar.

   You’re right, there’s great flash work being done by some really savvy people. But damn, it’s still so easy to hose things up, even for the savvy folks.

2. 002 // Ron Jackson // 06.16.2007 // 6:25 AM

   This site is spam, check out all the hidden divs!

3. 003 // Jim Proctor // 06.19.2007 // 9:14 AM

   Um, this approach has been found to be questionable and un-optimal more than 4 years ago when it was first attempted. Any site (flash, html, asp, etc) can get indexed, so to tout indexation as an achievement is not really so great. Search performance for competitive terms is the goal of SEO, and this tactic sets up a website for severe limitations in the area.

4. 004 // Jeff Croft // 06.19.2007 // 9:25 AM

   Jim: SEO means nothing to me. SEO is, for the most part, snake oil sales. Whether or not a site is effective at duping search engines into thinking it’s something it’s not is irrelevant in my mind, because that’s an immoral practice that doesn’t better the web. SEO is for sites that can’t compete on their own. Want better search engine results? Make a better site.

5. 005 // Jim Proctor // 06.19.2007 // 1:19 PM

   SEO is snake oil sales? I guess your definition of SEO is based on black hat spammers. I agree with your assessment that the best method is to create the best site possible. In fact this is the foundation of white hat SEO that I have been practicing for years. This is the basis of my previous comment.

6. 006 // Jeff Croft // 06.19.2007 // 1:35 PM

   Jim: I guess, then, I don’t understand the need for SEO as a business/speciality/consultancy/whatever. If the most moral and effective way to get better search engine results is to create useful sites the right way, then why does anyone need an SEO consultant? Shouldn’t I just learn to build good websites, rather than learning how to get better search results?

   I don’t know what you do or if you’re involved in SEO, but I’d love for someone to answer this for me. My impression is that the only people who make money off SEO are those who are not interested in making the web a better place. The people who are interested in making the web a better place wouldn’t be interested in SEO as a practice, they’d just be interested in helping their clients create the most useful content possible using web standards and other best practices. Right? So who are these “white hat” SEO consultants — because to me, if they’re really doing it the right way, then they’re not SEO consultants at all, but rather content strategy and web standards consultants.

   Am I wrong?

7. 007 // Jim Proctor // 06.19.2007 // 1:56 PM

   Jeff: You are absolutely right. In fact the primary focus of what we do is to help the client get their site as up to best practice standards, and help them develop content that is useful to users. While SEO has certainly had it’s share of shady characters, I don’t know any top-echelon search agency that advocates spam or Google-chasing.

   Our clients come to us with existing sites that often have serious issues that do not allow them to be found for what they are truly relevant for. The goal of white hat SEO is to help websites be found for what they actually do or sell or whatever, and no more. While we prefer to begin the SEO process during the design phase to comply with standards and best practices, most of the time they come to us with crappy sites. We fix them.

   You and I agree on making the web a better place by removing spammy junk sites. I just think you are in error if you equate SEO with the bad guys on this.

8. 008 // Jeff Croft // 06.19.2007 // 2:01 PM

   Jim, I think you’re probably right. I probaly am in error. Thanks for your response. I’m glad to hear you’re doing the right thing.

   I guess, to me, creating good and useful sites using web standards and best practices doesn’t really equate to SEO. To me, that’s just building websites. And if you build websites the right way, and they’re useful, Google will handle the rest. In other words, my feeling is that I don’t really apply any extra time to thinking about SEO. I just build sites, and trust that if they deserve to be the top hit on Google for a particular keyword, they will be. If they’re not, then my site doesn’t deserve to be there yet.

   So I guess that’s why I equate SEO to the shady characters. I guess, to me, what you’re doing for your clients is cleaning up their sites, and bringing them in 2007 with best web development practices. Better search engine results in one of many positive side effects of that.

   That’s how I look at it. But, in the end, it doesn’t much matter. You’re building good sites the right way, and that’s what matters. :)

9. 009 // marcus // 06.19.2007 // 2:56 PM

   lies! what designer who focus on “web standards” would post such garbage? http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-flash-files.com

10. 010 // Jeff Croft // 06.19.2007 // 3:07 PM

    Marcus, I hope that was a joke. If you were serious, this is how I would respond:

    1. That page has 11 minor errors. Don’t waste your time. If you must be an ass an pick apart other people’s work, I’d suggest starting with sites that have real problems.
    2. But why must you pick apart other people’s work, anyway? The validator is a tool for developers to gauge their compliance on their own work. It’s not an ammunition creator for assholes who just want to cowardly make fun of others.
    3. I follow the spirit of web standards. I don’t care for the letter of web standards. Too damn many people (and it sounds like you’re one of them) are more interested in doing what’s right than what works well. The web standards movement was a great thing. Now it’s time to move on and serve our users rather than serving the validator.
    4. Get over yourself, already.

    If you were joking, my apologies.

11. 011 // Jamie Roth // 06.26.2007 // 11:02 PM

    When will the SEO part be turned on or maybe the site is still beta? jeffcroft.com ranks higher on Google.com for “the flash files”. Sorry if that is dumb, I’m just trying to understand what this is or what it does? Maybe I should give up and get back to cutting grass.

12. 012 // Jeff Croft // 06.26.2007 // 11:08 PM

    Jamie: The site simply has content about why many of the nmisconceptions about Flash are wrong. I don’t think there’s an “SEO part,” per se. JeffCroft.com ranks higher on Google for “The Flash Files” because JeffCroft.com is a more popular site than TheFlashFiles.com. That’s how Google works. It’s a popularity machine. If TheFlashFiles.com gets more high-quality incoming links than JeffCroft.com, that will probaly change.

    I think you’re overthinking it, trying to figure out “what it does.” It simply talks about why Flash ain’t so bad — that’s all.

© 1999-2008 Jeffrey A. Croft. Hosted by WebFaction.
Views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.