Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe Makes Flash Crawlable

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the what-about-cut-and-paste dept.

nickull wrote in his journal that "Today Adobe systems made an announcement that it has provided technology and information to Google and Yahoo! to help the two search engine rivals index Shockwave Flash (SWF) file formats. According to the company, this will provide more relevant search rankings of the millions pieces of Flash content. Until now, developers had to implement workarounds for exposing text content used in Flash to search-engine spiders and other bots such as using XHTML data providers. While the Flash content is exposed, it is not yet clear how it will be utilized by the search engines, as they have not revealed their algorithms. The SWF specification is openly published."

44 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Amazing what a little competition will bring...

    1. Re:Silverlight by The+Crooked+Elf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, though, I'm hoping that, rather than little feature additions like this, they do one of the following: * Make it NOT an absolutely ridiculous memory hog. * Invest some time in making it work with Firefox better (i.e., without the crashes). * Make it work under 64-bit because, frankly, it's really, really stupid that it doesn't. They've had half a decade now; I don't care how poorly written their code-base is.

      --
      "Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
    2. Re:Silverlight by bberens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PDFs are an open format, and as of version 1.0 Google Desktop indexes PDFs. I think all the trouble you have with them is by design.. Businesses love PDFs because they're harder to manipulate.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:Silverlight by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Image PDFs" are required for certain workflows. The people who need them could care less if irrelevant poster #1001089 thinks they're horrible or not.

      And they actually have a have a text layer for OCR or searchabity which Google understands.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  2. GREAT! by the4thdimension · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...now I can search directly for those great flash games I use to pass the time at work! What'll they think of next?

    --
    Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
    1. Re:GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It always surprised me there is no Linux distro that has gone trough the trouble of wrapping systrace around the Flash plugin (or the entire browser?)

      I would definitely like to have a Flash-enabled browser that runs in a sandbox, and has only access to some of its own files (to store cookies/settings/etc.) but does not have access to the rest of my homedir.

    2. Re:Great! by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

      That has been possible for years. Possibly ever since the first version, I'm not sure. You use a fragment identifier in the link and check it to find out which "page" to display.

      There's enough wrong with Flash that misrepresenting it is unnecessary and only serves to discredit you in the eyes of people who know better.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:Great! by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to build this into the flash when creating as far as I know.

      Yes, that's true. Emphasis added to the comment I was replying to:

      Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

      nine-times was specifically talking about options available to developers.

      With html based sites no special work is required to make a page bookmarkable (aside from some ajax stuff, or in-page anchors).

      That's usually true, but like you say, there are exceptions, and it's not just the ones you mention. Frames, for example, cause similar problems, and JavaScript too (not just Ajax).

      I would welcome this if it is clear that it's flash content (like PDFs) in the search results, so I can make a judgment accordingly.

      I'm not sure if you are aware of this (a lot of people here don't seem to be), but search engines already index Flash. Google example. Yes, Flash results are identified in the same way PDF results are.

      This isn't a new feature, it's Adobe helping search engines improve the indexing they already do.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:Great! by heinzkunz · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

      Flex Builder 3 has support for deep links (they were possible before, but now it's in the framework), so a link from a search result directly to the searched item should be possible.

      You may want to take a closer look at why Flash is slow for you. The player is really fast. It's a decent virtual machine and graphics engine. If you have a flash 9 plugin, take a look at this page: http://papervision3d.org/ It's a 3d engine with texturing support that's usable on a current computer. It is impossible to touch that performance using a web browser without plugins. Flash is only slow if it's used in a stupid way (playing multiple video ads on a page) or programmed for by incompetent people (hobby coders, designers).

      I believe that Flash is a good platform, but as long as a single company can run it all into the ground, we can't rely on it. What is really missing is an open source flash player (Gnash is not good enough, I want Adobe to open up the player).

  3. For me... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Flash always crawls. That's life on dialup.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:For me... by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, at home I do have broadband. But I like taking cheap shots at Adobe. So far they've saved me hundreds of dollars by forcing me into the Gimp because Photoshop isn't ported to Linux yet.

      You hear me, Adobe! Do not port Photoshop to Linux! I need to keep my money in the bank!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  4. What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of (or in addition to) giving search engines information on Flash, Adobe should tell Flash users when not to use it. Avoid putting large texts in a Flash application and not offering the same in HTML. This is pretty obvious to everyone with half a brain, but "web developers" often seem to "forget".

    1. Re:What Adobe should do by RangerRick98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. I don't see why Flash content needs to be indexed by search engines, because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.

      The only good things Flash has done are games and embedded video. Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    2. Re:What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible."

      Not true (anymore). As of Flash 9, Adobe got some good accessibility implemented. You can have full keyboard accessibility within a Flash movie by enabling tabbing and setting tab indexes, as well as Section 508 support for screen readers. This was present in Flash 8 as well, but you had to jump through hoops just to enable it so it would work properly. Any flash files that aren't made accessible is due to programmer negligence and/or laziness. I still agree that web sites should be at most a mixture of Flash and regular HTML, but it's not as bad as you say.

    3. Re:What Adobe should do by Peeteriz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't index the web as it should be, you index the web as it is.
      "Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible." - probably yes, but there are such websites in noticeable amounts, so indexing them properly is a good thing. And maybe that will make them more accessible - via a deep link to the content you want, bypassing their flash menus.

    4. Re:What Adobe should do by doom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a subtle problem here: the standard is open in the sense that it's published, but it's still under the control of one company. If they liked, they could pull a Microsoft, and change the "standard" so that the next version would break everyone else's code.

      We might say that it is "open" but not "free", eh?

      (There's also a less-subtle problem, that Flash is designed to turn your computer into a television set. But some people will never get enough television.)

    5. Re:What Adobe should do by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...turn it into a television set? Man, you're right! All I need is a 16MHz text-processing machine, I don't need that fancy "multi-media" bullshit!

      Flash has it's uses. There's communication viable via computers and video that isn't with a television... that's valuable. Look at some of the more serious Youtube videos, that provide information and such. It's not all just videos of people getting kicked in the crotch and Rick Astley. If textual, search-style data is hidden in Flash, I agree that it's a bad thing. But your argument is more like "All we ever needed for information transfer was horses... why would anyone need one of them noisy automobiles?"

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    6. Re:What Adobe should do by lena_10326 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

      My philosophy is flash should be a page element, in other words used as rich media content--not as a page rendering engine, because that's what the browser is for (as well as xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript).

      I agree with your sentiment but I'll word it in a different way. If one is using flash to structure the document, one is doing it wrong. If one is using flash to deliver elements to implement animation effects, streaming video, logic, or server connectivity that's not feasible (or efficient) with xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript, then it's a valid use.

      There is one exception to the flash as a full page model. If the site contains a "desktop" application (for example a game, a document editor, a help desk program, or possibly a graphical travel planner, etc), then it's OK, but that application should be placed within a secondary page, clearly separate from general site content. It should not be forced upon the user to view all the remaining documents under the website. The same rules of thumb for when to use Java applets ought to apply for Flash web applications.

      When you say inaccessible, I interpret that to mean it's difficult to access the data within flash, as opposed to interface accessibility. I think that's true. You can't "Save As" the document if you pull up a report or tabular data, but you could if the site rendered that data as xhtml. In theory, the flash developer could implement a Print or view as a link feature, but that's no guarantee they will. Whereas Save As works on all xhtml pages regardless of whether the programmer paid attention to it or not. Being forced to screenshot the data, is a crappy inflexible alternative.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
  5. Oh great by Zerth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now we'll get black hat SEOs keyword stuffing flash files and adding flash widgets all over the place. /me never enabled flashblock before, but he might soon.

  6. That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd be much happier if the search engines quit linking to flash-only websites completely. Then maybe those horrible things would go away.

    I can't think of any case where I've seen a Flash-only site where Flash added anything of substance (cuteness doesn't count), and they tend to be hard and non-standard to navigate, break key bindings (like CTRL-T to open a new tab doesn't work if mouse is over Flash), etc.

    Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.

    1. Re:That's unfortunate by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.

      What does that have to do with Flash?

      I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.

      You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site. (Well, and your associate who apparently contracted the developer without checking out the quality of his work before.)

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:That's unfortunate by superflippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One example I've come across in the last few months where Flash is actually useful is for photographers' web sites. They're often paranoid about people copying the photos off their sites, yet they need to show their work so they'll get hired.

      Putting their portfolios into a Flash slideshow is a good compromise. Of course, anyone who can make screenshots can still copy their photos, but it adds a little extra security.

      Though, too many (IMO) go too far and have whiz-bang all-Flash sites with unnecessary bells and whistles. It's fine to use Flash for a specific purpose, but when you add animation, background music, etc. it detracts from the product being promoted (i.e. photography).

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    3. Re:That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.

      Yes, you can do dumb things with other tools if you try to. But, my point is that such dumb things are common and somewhat encouraged by Flash. Plain old HTML provides a basic user interface that works reasonably well. It's not fancy, but it works. If you try hard enough with JavaScript you can muck things up, but things work reasonably well by default; things only go horribly wrong when developers try to move beyond the basics and make bad decisions in the process. Flash gives you a lot more control over the user interface, but without a basic standard starting point for page structure and navigation (as far as I know). So every Flash developer builds his/her own little custom method of navigation, and many lack sensible functionality, worrying more about cuteness instead. Basic things like hitting CTRL-F to search within a page, or being able to bookmark after navigating around get broken.

      You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site.

      Is it possible to create a decent website in pure Flash? Perhaps. Is it possible to put a screw into a wall with a hammer? Yes, but it's not the best approach. In practice, pure-Flash websites rarely work well, and that's because Flash isn't a good tool for that particular job. Adobe's website isn't pure Flash. That should tell you something.

    4. Re:That's unfortunate by Raenex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When a technology encourages poor design, it's wise to speak out about it. The more people that understand the issues the better. Flash has it's place, but as a standard replacement for basic web pages it just doesn't cut it.

      Fash: 99% Bad, written in 2000, still makes as much sense today as it did 8 years ago.

      An ideal Flash would be truly integrated in the browser in a seamless way, however it just isn't there. Style sheets and JavaScript are better solutions for most applications.

    5. Re:That's unfortunate by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Flash for DRM is (as you've sort of noted) about as silly as Javascript for DRM. After all, "anyone who can make screenshots" would be anyone who knows where the magic PrtSc key is on their keyboard and also knows what it does. Javascript used to be popular to suppress the right-click context menu, so that web developers could "prevent" people from ripping off their uber kewl web programming leetness. Now, Firefox still pops up the message box that the web developer put in to tell you that you can't use the context menu, and then it shows you the context menu anyway. (And that's with Javascript enabled, to say nothing of NoScript.)

  7. Here's hoping... by Tomfrh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hopefully it'll crawl under a rock and die.

  8. Something about this makes me uncomfortable... by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...matter of fact, it makes my Flash crawl!

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  9. Great! by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want. And make the Flash plugin fast. And make it not crash so often. Oh and then, finally, come up with a real reason as to why we should use Flash instead of something else.

    Once they do that, it'll be a great little format.

  10. This seriously sucks by Micah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that search engines couldn't index Flash was a strong argument against its use for textual content. With that excuse gone, more webmasters might consider using it.

    Only problem is, Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser. Flash text does not behave like HTML text in several ways.

    I really hope this doesn't encourage more Flash content from point-n-drool webmasters ...

    1. Re:This seriously sucks by Uzuri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they make it "crawlable", though, wouldn't that mean that the text is available to be read somewhere? And that means it's only a matter of time before someone designs a Flash translator that pulls the content (and say, LINKS?! #$%&@ flash developers) and turns it into straight XHTML.

      I'd pay for that.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
    2. Re:This seriously sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Webmasters? The desire to barf Flash all over a page comes from "online marketing managers" (which I am), executives, people near the top of the pyramid and, by and large, people who just don't get it. These individuals will preface every decision with "when I browse I do", or "people don't want to do X, they want to do Y", often without a shred of evidence and, even more infuriatingly, in direct contradiction of someone who took the time to analyze the data in the first place.

      Flash has its place, but it's a very narrow place and this announcement has removed one of my biggest trump cards (re: "no you can't have your retarded dancing monkey on the homepage, it wont bring in visitors and thus we'll lose revenue")

  11. Flash by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled. More likely, most flash will contain nothing but junk and internals that were never meant to be seen anyway. I wonder when the first "we recovered a password that was stored inside a flash file" / "we googled for vulnerable flash apps and found these" hits will come about. And, as someone's already pointed out, if you *can* extract the text from them, you can't do much useful with it besides say "it's in this Flash somewhere". You can't even do "find in page" once you've clicked on such a link. And if it's at the end of an hour-long Flash animation, you're not going to sit through it.

    Then you'll have some people who have actually used bitmaps instead of text inside the Flash for various reasons, etc. The only useful thing to come out of this may well be a "View as HTML" version of Flash-only pages. But they will still be second-class pages because the designer didn't want to do it theirselves.

    Given that people who use Flash aren't exactly the most popular people in the world (e.g. if you want it to appear in Google, be read by people, to be bookmarked, to be quoted/cited/linked etc.), this won't affect much - Finding content in a Flash file is like looking for a needle in a haystack. That's the problem solved by this announcement. However, finding *useful* content in that file is going to be even worse, and actually getting users TO that data will be almost impossible.

    I imagine that the same thing will happen as it did with images, PDF's, etc. Those who design their Flash well will get something indexed and it'll actually get a hit or two from "View HTML Version" on Google. Those who don't (i.e. 99% of the people who make them) won't see any difference at all.

    1. Re:Flash by Zekasu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you store a password in a Java applet in a string, you can download that applet and open it in Notepad to find it. I'm assuming this is the same in SWF documents.

      Also considering you can pretty much disassemble SWF files, well, that's your fault.

      Although I do agree that being able to search Google for vulnerable Flash applications is a major concern, I'm to go out on a limb and say that Adobe, coupled with Google, are going to do something like only make text-containing boxes into crawl-able material.

      That aside, I'm hoping that search engines also implement a "only display results without Flash content" feature.

    2. Re:Flash by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled.

      http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html

  12. I don't get it by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would I want search engines crawling through my thumb-drive?



    OK, before you mod me troll, that was a joke.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  13. A Good Thing by intx13 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'll deride slow-loading, unintuitive Flash apps as much as the next guy, but this is a big step towards Flash a viable alternative to the HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP jumble that makes up the Web today. Other things that still need addressing (IMO) to make a true Flash web:
    • Flash-to-Flash linking
    • More natural and useful text objects
    • Standardized framework for GUI elements
    • Real accessibility

    If these things could get cleared up, I wouldn't mind seeing a Flash Web... where Flash isn't a box in the center of an HTML page, but the basic protocol itself (like what Curl claims to be).

    Of course given the cludginess of most Flash apps, maybe I'm just being a masochist here!

    1. Re:A Good Thing by biovoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA - Adobe has provided a version of the Flash Player that allows search engines to crawl dynamically loaded content. That's the whole point of the article. Google has been indexing static SWF content for years - this is all about dynamic content.

  14. Am I the only one... by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... who read the title as "Adobe Makes Flesh Crawl"? My first thought was, yeah, so what else is new?

    --
    I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  15. Someone not invited to the party? by slashmojo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So only Google & Yahoo were "provided technology and information" - Microsoft must be feeling left out.. lucky for adobe they dont live in sweden I suppose.

    I wonder why adobe didn't invite msft/live.com to the party? Sour grapes over silverlight perhaps?

  16. Ok, now how do we get it by Paul+Carver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This would be great if it can be implemented directly into web browsers. For example, a Firefox plugin that allows me to specify "view text only" for Flash content.

    Or is this "proprietary" information that will only be given to Google and Yahoo and not shared with the us commoners?

    I don't know what brain damage causes people to think that they should present text a half a dozen words at a time in a slideshow, but it would be great if my browser would default to showing me all the text from a flash slideshow and then let me choose if I really want to see it pieced out a few words at a time.

  17. Re:Flash content stuck in Search index by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uhh... there are now several ways for flash developers to allow deep linking in to flash... it uses a hash and directory structure with javascript to pass the url into flash, which then auto loads or skips to the content being requested.

    This is not new, it's been around for 2 years now.

    Here's a site I built in just such a fashion:

    http://www.soursweetgone.com/flash/#/friends/punk-a-friend/

    This section of the site lets you upload a photo, morph it using a displacement map filter to either spherize or pinch the photo.. don't forget to zoom in on the good part... then you can email the results with a message to anyone. (yes we collect your info, but it's a candy company... your choice).

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  18. That's sad news by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lack of indexing may have been one of the only things holding back the total Flashification of the Web.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  19. Re:hmmmm by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the sooner we get rid of flash the better, competition or not.

    I hate these 'industry standards' that get used by everybody and their brother in applications where there are much better and open solutions.

    To hell with flash, and no kudos for google/yahoo for helping this shite stay around longer.

    --
    MP3 Search Engine
  20. Re:hmmmm by no1home · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, if web programmers would adopt and adhere to some 'best practices', flash, applets, and the like would be less of a problem. What they should include on each of their web pages is a way to toggle each movie and each sound, with the default being to not play until told to do so. I shouldn't need No Script to stop the wailing of a page.

    And along the lines of what Google-Yahoo-Adobe are trying to achieve here, they should make it so we can right click on any of the links and get my usual menu options: open link in new window; in new tab; in IE tab (for those who use this); copy link location; bookmark; etc. Then it would be much more integrated into the web experience and we'd all be (at least a little) more comfortable with it.

    --
    I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

    Persecutors will be violated!