Hey Tommy, thanks again for your response.
I've read both those pages you linked too (sadly the example links are dead in the SEW site).
From What I can gather on Google:
"This document describes the use of the "NoFrames" tag to provide alternate content. If you use wording such as "This site requires the use of frames," or "Upgrade your browser," instead of providing alternate content on your site, then you'll exclude both search engines and individuals who've disabled frames on their browsers."
This is obviously true, but my point is whether Google will index (or give any value too) replicated content that is in these noFrames tags.
And from SEW:
"Now we have some descriptive text that any search engine can read, not just those that support meta tags. Furthermore, we've created a way for them (and humans) to get inside the site."
In this example the content they are putting in no frames is a reference to an index page, on the same site.
It could well be viewed as a Black hat technique if the NoFrames is abused to try and rank for terms not in the iFrame as it wouldn't be seen by the user but would by Google. But for example it's not like the content has been made the same colour as the background to deliberately hide it, like a proper black hat technique.
Basically "No Frames" is a tag that could be open to abuse, if Google does indeed index the "no frames tag" for anything more than links. so is Google likely to index it, giving the site the benefit of the doubt as it could be used innocently
Thanks again for the links, I just don't think they get to the core of the situation.
