What text inside Flash is indexed by Google?

问题:

Does the following mean that dynamic TextFields will NOT be indexed?

We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.

Does the following mean that ONLY static TextFields will be indexed?

At this time, content loaded dynamically from resource files is not indexed. We’ve noted this feature request from several webmasters, look for this in a near future update.

From Improved Flash indexing, Google Blog

回答1:

Condensing the entire 45 minute video The Searchable SWF by Jim Corbett.

All text in TextFields that follow all these rules will be Indexed by the Virtual User (Google)

1. Is Static or Dynamic -- not Input
2. On the displayList / an instance on the stage -- not just in-RAM
3. Any 1 of the 4 corners inside the stage boundaries -- not off-stage
4. Visible -- not invisible, not alpha=0
5. Not inside a bitmap Image -- images are not OCR'd
6. Not a shape or graphic that looks like text -- shapes are not OCR'd
7. Publicly accessible without logging-in -- not behind logins/authentication
8. Not relying on external data files -- no external files loaded, no XML/SWF/TXT/etc
9. Any font size -- too small might be considered spam
10. Typed out in Flash IDE or ActionScript generated, even components

回答2:

I think it strictly does not say that the content of dynamic fields is not indexed, setting the content from code but not from an external source seems not to be excluded by this text. But since this is not a usual scenario it does not matter that much.

回答3:

This is a squirrely sort of question, for a few reasons:

1. Text fields can be "dynamic" without relying on "external resources,"
2. The post is six months old, and
3. The Flash search-player project is under active development.

So it'd be difficult to get a solid answer from anyone who isn't either a Google or Adobe engineer working on the search-player project, and even then, it's still a somewhat complicated one, depending on the implementation. So the safest and most dependable answer, right now anyway, is probably Maybe -- but I wouldn't necessarily count on it, yet.

Still, that said, the entire purpose of the search-player project is to solve exactly this kind of problem, so while that answer might not necessarily be yes today (which it might be, only we don't know know for sure), it'll definitely edge closer to yes with time.

One thing you can do now is watch this video in which Jim Corbett (from the Flash-player team and who's been working with Google directly) explains all this stuff in about as much detail as you're likely to get from anyone today. (At about 19 minutes in, he live-demos the virtual-user indexing/text-field stuff at work, too.) It should give you a pretty clear picture of things as they stand now, where they're headed, what works and what doesn't, etc., so you can weigh the options and make a good decision for your project. Good luck!

回答4:

Confirmations of what is done:

1. All ActionScript is executed so all logic will work as expected
2. All versions of ActionScript 1, AS2, AS3 will be executed
3. All buttons are rolled-over / out and clicked / mousedown / mouseup
4. Codebased on Flash Player 9.0.124 with the exact ActionScript engines.
5. Currently the only supported search engine is Google.

Confirmations of what is NOT done:

1. Deep-linking generated URLs will not work (Flash Search Player doesn't pass to Google)
2. Adobe thought of requesting SWFs to send back a list of deep-linked URLs. (black-hat SEO)
3. External files are not sent to SWFs, not loaded.
4. XML/SWF/other files will be processed/executed independently.
5. Yahoo! and other search engines are in discussions to use the Flash Search Player.
6. Accessible text (not visible) is not yet indexed.
7. Video meta-data is not yet indexed.
8. Not codebased on Flash Player 10 but plan to.
9. Font sizes are not read therefore no difference for titles/content.
10. ExternalInterface does not work. (no JavaScript or ActiveX backend)