Badly organized and coded frame sites will stop a spider in it's tracks.

Well coded and planned framed sites are fine.

I recommend that you browse around the Dynamic Pages, Frames and Stuff forums. It would take a day and a half to list everything here, 'sides it is all pretty well covered there - if any questions pop up post the there

Dynamic Pages, Frames and Stuff

Now hopefully an argument will ensue…. and I apologize for using the word ensue.

Henry VII

21 For Youth is frail and prompt to do,
22 As well vices as virtues to ensue.
23 Wherefore by these he must be guided
24 And Virtue's pastance must be therein used.

Frames are not evil. The people who use them without fully understanding them and their cause/effect are not evil, but...
The lack of <noframes> is enough to make Medusa search high and low for a mirror.

Isn’t the fact that there is a <noframes> tag enough to turn you to stone Metis?

Never mind the visitor that is unfortunate to find themselves stranded on a page that has no navigation system because they came in from a SE SERP, pity the poor visitor who spends an hour going through the menu system, finds the needed information, but then can’t bookmark it!

Frames and a head full of snakes is an apt comparison.

SERP's leading to lone pages - Hogwarts! says I.

Unless of course you have not learned of the simple javascript to control issue

Even I will allow that framed sites are not for the faint hearted, nor are they usually necessary. But There are instances where frames are not only beneficial but necessary. In those cases it is of the utmost importance that the coder avail his/herself of all that it is possible to achieve with frames.

Gorgon indeed - and don't you forget it!

…been reading some really old books lately.

Only if badly written. But don't you think W3C should be thinking about this? Don't you think it's time that IE and Netscape helped here, giving us simpler way to organise these two problems?

Unreviewed: "Isn?t the fact that there is a <noframes> tag enough to turn you to stone Metis?"

Isn't the fact that there is a <noscript> tag enough to tell us that we should NEVER use JavaScript? No?

Just a a small point - you use <iframe> and <noframe> and <script> on this site. Perhaps you should not use them?

And as I post this reply I see a frame below with all the previous responses listed? Does this look a child's site?

I agree with crash, frames work well, but only when written well and only when they have been thought out properly. Give them to an amatuer and watch the problems escalate.

1. Properly done = extra work = extra cost
2. It is believed (but I don't have any evidence to prove it) that content in the no frames tag is not rated as highly by Google as actual page content.

Also, "simple javascript to control issue". Does this work if javascipt is disabled in the browser?

Easy to get around. You have to make sure that users with JavaScript disabled have a way to navigate, even if not brought into the frameset. You simply put navigation links in a <noscript> section.

Properly done = extra work = extra cost.

Well I have done two posts here and probably spent a similar amount of time organising my framesets. That's not a lot of work, however, I was aware of what I needed to do before I started.

Frames can be used for many things, one frame can hold all the JavaScript variables - so wherever a user navigates to, these variable are never reset. Does this happen when you include JavaScript files?

Far as I can see, it is design laziness on the small - medium website design part. Yup yup they have their place yadda yadda, no denying it.

But the better SERP's acheived by the larger sites I input too are far far better out of frames too.

LOL

Are frames that bad?
No.

Do search engines not rank frames that well?
They all rank them identically. Getting them to spider them involves more work, but once listed they make no difference.

But:
If you are thinking of setting up a new site there are only a few reasons for using frames:
1) JavaScript shopping cart.
2) JavaScript variables required at all times.
3) Subpages of existing pages required.

Other than that, they should be used sparingly.

You need to consider:
1) People arriving on any random page.
2) JavaScript forwarding (without disabling the back button)
3) People with JavaScript disabled.
4) 'Pushing' the various spiders to follow into your frames.
5) People without frames compatible browsers, there are still some out there.
6) Additional load time of pages as each request is sent. (This is fractional but noticable on a slow server)

Unless you can answer 'yes, I know how to handle of of the above', don't use frames.

Also remember Overture's rules have changed so that bid keywords must go straight to a relevant page. This means a JavaScript redirect. They will not allow that if it takes more than one click on the back button to get back out.

You may not be considering Overture now, but neither was I when I set up my site. I use them now.

See what a Gorgon and a CandyStriper can do!

I agree, this is an excellent thread

"once listed they make no difference." Not exactly. The problem is when the pages are changed, over time. New programmers come in to make the changes who don't know/remember/care why each frame was treated in a particular way (for SEO reasons) so problems arise. Because each page is, in fact, multiple pages (each frame being a page), then these problems multiply and it is less easy to pick up the mistakes.

I agree with you PCInk, if this my site, coded by me, that I would be right on top of all of this. But in my experience it is common for the staff working on a site to change rapidly eg every 3 or 4 months because the staff either move to other web design firms or, more likely, move on to more exciting projects, leaving the updates to the site to be done by the newbies to the web design firm. Hence problems arise. Hence higher costs.

Hence my advice - unless you really need frames (and PCInk gives some excellent examples where you would use frames), avoid them.