Are Google now indexing iFrames?

[White.net]

A client is pulling content through an iFrame, and when searching for a snippet of that exact content the page that is pulling the data is being indexed and not the iFrame page. Seen this before?

[fablau]

Yeah, I use iframes and if I want to be sure they are NOT indexed, I Just add a "noindex" tag. You may also want to add a "nofollow" tag to avoid spiders to follow links inside the frame. Using iframes may be a good idea to reduce the number of links on a page (Bruce Clay suggestion).

[MikeGeorge]

I've never seen it before, but like everyone here said, it's not a good idea.

This makes me wonder though:

1. Can you find the original page using a snippet? And if not:

2. Is the page contained in the iframe indexed? (Or better-phrased, is the page that is being framed "noindex"?)

It makes sense to me that if the framed page is noindex, that Google would index the content and attribute it to the page framing it.

One perfect example:

I embed videos using an iframe and then I make the video unlisted in YouTube. My embedded content is indexed and even displayed as a rich snippet....

[Thos003]

I have noticed content within iFrames being indexed by google and text within those iFrames being attributed to the page/url that is hosting the iFrame. Not sure how often this applies. I avoid iFrames.

Merchant Circle uses them and  their pages get credit for content in them.

[Gaveltek-173238]

It might have been covered but it does seem that google is ignoring iframes in relation to commets code posted on sites.for instance: our text cached version.: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8IZ95GICp7AJ:gaveltek.com/seoblog/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

compare the page title to (use headers it easier)

www.gaveltek.com/seoblog the list "comments" and despite there being some the are  not posted. However, I do believe general wordpress comments hold some weight. That is not to sayt that facebook comments do not, its just done via different metrics, like social, and trust, and egngagement.

Cheers

TODD

[joseph.chambers]

A good way to check is go to google.com and type in your full URL like this:

site:www.domain.com

Then you will be populated with your sites pages of course. Now there is a link there that says: "cache" and you can see what it cached.

I think they may be getting better at knowing what's in a iframe. Look at how many sites use facebook comments on the blog and how do you think thats ran? iframes. Do you remember google and adobe working together at reading .pdf's and flash.

The little magnifying glass has some cool technology behind it that I'm sure helped them know whats really on the site. Without getting to far off track I do feel like they are better at reading iframes. Just my .02c in this thread.

[AnthonyYoung]

last thought... i've only ever used iframes in the aforementioned example. Not an ideal way to display your original content if you want it indexed.

[AnthonyYoung]

It is very typical for Google to ignore iframes. I don't know the precise details of your situation but there are several reasons for iframing that might make sense - this is situational - so no hating!

1. you're an affiliate and using another offer (conversion form) that you have to iframe to generate leads, etc

2. you want to hide duplicate content that appears elsewhere on the site (although there are far more elegant ways to do this)

3)You're pulling video or other syndicated content from a publisher who wants to maintain control (ie not let you outrank them with their own content)

*** Remember that the iframed content can certainly be indexed but usually only from the destination URL's originating source. For example: You are www.insuranceaffilifate.com running an offer from www.insurance.com/form_1011 - you will most likely use insurance.com's form via iframe on your landing page. That form, unless it uses a NOINDEX meta tag, will likely be picked by the search engines from www.insurance.com but will be ignored on your site www.insuranceaffiliate.com.

Hope this helps.

[ChrisMacNaughton]

I have to agree with Julich in that you should move the content to be truly located on www.domain.com instead of iframe.domain.com.

[White.net]

I totally agree that they shouldn't be using iFrames and it is part of my recommendations to them, but we need to work with what we have at the moment.

So just to clarify, you would say that www.domain.com which is pulling the data through from iframe.domain.com would rank?

Even though all the content except the navigation, footer, etc is on iframe.domain.com.

[Julich]

Normally, it would be www.domain.com (unless it doesn't provide any content outside the iFrame).

But it is not abnormal to also see iframe.domain.com in the SERPS, since it may have some backlinks pointing to it.

Anyway, using iframes is a weird technique and I recommend you merge those into www.domain.com if possible (and don't forget to do some 301 redirections to tell Google your pages have definitely moved to www.domain.com).

[White.net]

OK, so if www.domain.com was pulling through content from iframe.domain.com which domain would you expect to rank?

I would personally expect iframe.domain.com to rank as that is actually where the content is and the www.domain.com provides the link to that page. I am currently seeing both domains rank, which has lead me to ask the question.