Category Archives: Google

Can You See Me?: Flash 'SEO' and indexing SWF content

Exactly how search engines deal with the content of Flash-based websites and information in SWF files has notoriously been a bit of a grey area for a long time. Historically, website creators had to battle with clients as to whether the aesthetic potential of Flash was enough a pay-off against their judgement of the importance of this new idea called ‘SEO’.

In July of last year, Adobe announced a collaboration with Google (1, 2) and Yahoo! to develop a new Flash Player technology specifically to enhance the search results of dynamic content in Flash – ultimately, to make the SWF searchable.

But it was unclear how it worked, what it actually did and what provisions the Flash developer or content creators would have to make.

Peter Elst aired his thoughts and agreed as I did, it looked like a ‘backup’ or intermediary solution. There also lacked a standard or recommended approach to deploying the content for this new technology – presuming this new platform hadn’t just become instantly intelligent to all possibly methods of delivery.

Adobe later published an FAQ, but still it wasn’t very technical, so a few developers started experimenting. After seeing Peter’s attempts, Ryan Stewart announced a Flex SEO Contest – an outright declaration that we’re confused but determined to find out what exposure our content has. As well as being a bit of fun. ;)

Dominic Gelineau constructed fourteen test cases, essentially finding every possible way you could contain a simple text string in a SWF file (see 1 – 7 here, 8 – 14 here). He used both static and dynamic TextFields, populated them in various ways, MXML components, standard Flash UI components, whether to use states, etc – covering all the bases across Flash and Flex.

Initially he concluded Google wasn’t really finding anything new, but in a later article for InsideRIA he listed his principle observations:

  1. Most of the content that was on the stage/timeline at compile time would be indexed even if it was outside the viewing area.
     
  2. The TextArea, Text, ViewStack and custom MXML component in Flex would get indexed if they were in the MXML (the Flex equivalent of being on the stage) but the Label component would not.
     
  3. Until October, SWF files embedded in the HTML using JavaScript (SWFObject, AC_RunActiveContent, etc) could not be found on Google.
     
  4. Again until October, anything related to the ActionScript 3 method addChild would not get indexed. As an example, adding a MovieClip from the library with static text in it using addChild method would not show up in Google’s search results. In the same way, using states in Flex wouldn’t work. My guess is that since states uses addChild in its MXML syntax, once compiled it would get converted to the addChild method in AS3.
     
  5. Finally, any content loaded externally from the embedded SWF file wouldn’t get indexed, but was clearly stated by Google.
     

Fortunately, Jim Corbett, Flash Player Engineer at Adobe offeres some much-need clarification, answering many of these questions at the Adobe MAX conference this year. The video can be found at Adobe TV, (I’m having problems embedding it with WordPress) – it’s lengthy, and gives a good insight into the Player’s search mechanics.

Friends Go Anywhere: Social sign-on services

The other day I wrote about Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect - two recently launched, very similar services going head-to-head in the ambitious self-proclaimed aim of ‘opening up’ the social web.

But if these platforms are successful, what will that actually be like? The demo sites Google provides are good for functional demonstrations but little else. There’s a complete list of sites that use Facebook Connect up on their dev wiki – there’s Joost, Netvibes and TechCrunch, but no-one with such a diverse and active user base like Twitter.

Then on Monday came on the news that Twitter chose to Connect with Google’s service. It’s strange that there wasn’t more made of the announcement, considering what could come of it.

Twitter hardly said much about it at all on their blog, Google covered it in more depth but also provided the first real recognisable use case for an integrated site. Now whenever you join a ‘Friend Connected’ site, you can use your Twitter profile to join their service. From there, you can see of a combination of your followers and those who you follow that are already on the site and connect with them there too. You can tweet about your find from the connected website’s portal.

Getting a big site like Twitter on board will really kick Friend Connect up a gear, undoubtedly it’ll receive a massive increase in attention. But it’s not like Facebook Connect is by any means down or out – it’s so early. If anything, the introduction of these services to such widely used web apps as an almost unblinkingly ’standard’ feature (this will eventually boil down to a simple ‘Connect’ button) could positively change users’ perceptions of them to being just commonplace. I’m sure that’s the ultimate intention, but right now it’ll work in favour for any such service, be it Facebook Connect or any other.

It’ll be a while before we see any real difference in the reception or growth of implementation for either service, whether by then we have a preferred leader or not.

I’m interested to see how Facebook will respond in aiming to get as big a site as Twitter integrated with Connect. Prior to the Twitter inclusion, I felt that Google’s Friend Connect came across almost like a developer’s toolkit – like a set of ready-made widgets to enhance onto your site, boosted by the capability to network centrally. But now I’ve seen it in action, Facebook have a undeniable rival product.

It should be said of course that Twitter hasn’t really chosen Google over Facebook. Biz Stone wrote that there was hardly any effort required on Twitter’s part - Google maybe just got in there first.

It’s in the same post he goes on to say that Facebook Connect integration is already in development. Twitter officially announced integration with MySpace and the Data Availability initiative seven months ago – they’re embracing everything they can, good on ‘em.

Connect: Introducing Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect

For some time I’ve been meaning to write about Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect, two potentially huge social web developments that have been gathering speed and popularity over the past few weeks.

Both services are very similar. Essentially, each functions to simplify the connection between social and non-social websites by offering connectivity (and some functionality) of each’s proprietary central platform on 3rd party websites.

The idea is that a user can ‘Connect’ with whichever service the site has employed and find users with whom they’ve already connected with on the other services – rather than creating a new account, profile, repeat the steps of entering information to then find the friends you’ve already added over and over again with every other social-enabled web app you’ve used previously.

I first saw Facebook Connect in August with their demonstration service  The Run Around. There, you could ‘Connect with Facebook’ to initially join the site and immediately see who else (of your Facebook friends) has joined too. This is all outside of the Facebook chrome, not on the Facebook domain. What’s more, as well as interacting with the linked data pulled from Facebook, the website could push data back in. The actual site intended to track your running routes and times, so when you submitted a new ‘run’, it would publish to your live newsfeed on your Facebook profile.

The idea is simple, the effect could be game-changing. It’s been met with both cautious optimism and healthy skepticism.

If this becomes as massive as it could be, we could see a single sign-in that abolishes the need to register and re-register for every newly launched social app. We’re already experiencing social fatigue within that process as consumers and as developers, we’re having to build whole registration and authentication systems from scratch every time. Plugging into a platform like this – that we assume to be secure and trusted – could offer a means to develop and deploy services much easier and faster.

But can we trust – or do we want to trust – a propriety platform to do this for us? The idea of a single social graph isn’t new, but I don’t know if I want Facebook to offer it. I’d much prefer FOAF :) – but how many people outside of the development world have heard of it?

I feel I need to write another post entirely about OpenID, OpenSocial and OAuth entirely – services that can’t go unmentioned here – but Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb wrote a direct comparison of Facebook Connect and OpenID that asks some interesting questions as well as offering a good introduction to the open source services anyway. Although he started by discussing as to which of the two should website owners use to authenticate and learn about their users, the community expanded his initial mindmap to cover pretty much every angle in the comparison – and it’s very detailed, see it here.

He also asks, even if it doesn’t become the dominant identifier online, will Facebook’s challenge breathe new life into the movement for open source, standards based, federated user identity?

Then there’s Google Friend Connect – launched in public beta the same day as Facebook Connect went public for 3rd party sites. This does use a blend of the open source services, but although integrating the open standards might suggest a weightier development process, the first thing to notice is a far less developer-oriented implementation than Facebook Connect.

Using Facebook Connect is down to the site creator to construct and integrate an interface to facilitate the connection – Google Friend Connect is widgety, with pretty much zero coding other than cutting and pasting directed portions. Similarly with the functionality, Google offer widgets for simple commenting on pages, media sharing, or rating content. With Facebook Connect you have to write that yourself – although admittedly, you then have full reign on design and interaction.

There’s a demonstration video on the Google blog’s announcement of the beta launch.

It’s not like this is just a two-horse race though, or that someone won’t work out a way two use both anyway. Google and Facebook are in direct competition, but attempting to open the Web in this way extends far beyond them.

What I find interesting is the interoperability. These technologies aren’t semantic, but do push the exposure and interoperation on a user’s social graph with ideas akin to the Semantic Web – utilising data to extend single-site online identities and networking social connections.

They’re not Semantic Web efforts but they have similar aims. Friend Connect’s goal is an open social web, the Semantic Web is – quite simply ;) – a fully understood, completely open web, not only it’s social domain.

I Know There’s an Answer: Google's view on the Semantic Web

Just lately I’ve been really interested in finding out Google’s position on semantic technologies and their view on the Semantic Web.

I’d been asked before whether Google were making any efforts in developing semantic technology, but I couldn’t really say. Then I attended the Googleworld debate, at London’s ICA, but couldn’t really find the chance to pose any technical questions.

In an attempt to satisfy my curiosity – and anyway, to investigate something I believe to be of interest that, as far as I can find, hasn’t received any real attention to date – I wrote an open letter, of sorts, forwarded to Google and Semantic Web researchers I’ve found connected to Google, simply asking:

What’s the deal?

Dear Google,

My name is Marc Hibbins, I write a blog I’m sure you wouldn’t have read, I tend to cover new web technologies, online trends, my own development issues, but I’m also extremely interested in the Semantic Web.

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve become increasing interested in finding out Google’s position, or just their ideas even, on the Semantic Web and semantic technologies. I recently wrote about the increase in tech blogs covering the subject over the past couple of weeks, and I’ve been asked a few times – what’s Google up to?

I also recently attended a debate called ‘Googleworld’ – it covered, generally, the past ten years of Google and what’s to come. I wrote about it, and the chair of the meeting replied that he too, is unaware of Google’s position.

Could you shed any light on the topic? Having had a thorough look around online, I’ve found next to nothing. I’m extremely intrigued to find out if Google have any plans with semantic technology – or even if there’s any in place already that just might not be so visible?

If you’ve no plans, do you have any comments? Do you think it’ll even ever happen?

Kindest regards,

Marc Hibbins

I wasn’t sure what kind of response I’d get, if any at all. Or if anybody I did get in touch would be wary of offering any insight that might be misinterpreted as any ‘official’ position.

To my surprise, my first response came from executive ‘Google Fellow’ Jeff Dean. He works in the Systems Infrastructure Group (crawling, indexing and query systems – full bio here), but he couldn’t initially offer any real strong thoughts on the issue. He did say however, that he wasn’t sure if Google even had any real position on the subject at all. If nothing, at least this confirmed that my lack of findings wasn’t down to only an absence of research published externally from Google – or poor investigative work on my part.

My second reply was from Stefan Decker, professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway and director of the Digital Enterprise Research Institute, an internationally recognised institute in Semantic Web and web science research. He co-presented a very interesting Google Tech Talk last year, and worked in Stanford at the same group as Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

He said, very explicitly, that:

In short: The Google management does not believe in meta-data.

Craig Silverstein is on record several times negatively of talking about the topic, as well as Sergey Brin. It is very clear that they are not proactive – a serious mistake from my point of view.

Interesting. I got in touch with his co-speakers, Eyal Oren and Sebastian Kruk. Both said they have contacts at Google still, but neither are aware of any public developments.

Eyal pointed me toward Sindice, a semantic search engine and index as perhaps (though only speculatively – as likely any search engine), might one day receive interest from Google. Perhaps to incorporate their infrastructure for RDF and semantic data consumption. But as he said, there’s absolutely no evidence of it right now.

Sebastian on the other hand described the lack of address specifically as:

[Their] ‘anti-semantic’ approach.

An increasing trend he’s recognised. Suggesting an almost concious movement against any such development. He also expressed his disappointment at the very low turn out at the Tech Talk, that literally only one attendee showed any real interest.

My final response was initially the most exciting – from Ramanathan V. Guha, who leads development of Google Custom Search. He said he’d be happy to comment on what’s going on, although could only offer his own personal opinion and nothing official – but I’ve not received any correspondence from him since.

All in all, at least I know I’ve not overlooked anything major. Fingers crossed I get a response back from Guha, but otherwise I guess I’m left keeping a close eye out for any other developments.

Chat and Business: Attending the Googleworld debate

Picked up a spare ticket to the ‘Googleworld’ debate at the the Institute of Contemporary Arts yesterday evening. Bill Thompson chaired a pleasantly ‘warm’ chat between New York Times columnist Randall Stross and Independent columnist Andrew Keen.

Initially I wasn’t sure what to expect, billed as a look back over the past ten years of Google and forward to whatever might come next, it wasn’t as technically oriented as I’d hoped it’d be. It more focused on social and philanthropical interest – as a well as being a bit of a sell for both their new books.

I would have liked the opportunity to open up discussion to Semantic technologies, perhaps to pose the question, What are Google’s intentions? – if they even have any – of introducing any Semantic Web technologies to their platform. It’s something I was recently asked about after writing my last post, but it wasn’t really the right crowd.

In other news, Semantic start-up Twine goes public today. Founder Nova Spivack, posted some interesting stats yesterday about user engagement on the site over the last eight months during it’s semi-public, semi-beta phase.

It seems their users queue up some lengthy sessions on the site, longer even, he now predicts, than Delicious and MySpace.

I went out for a ride and I never went back.