Encrypted HTML vs. spiders

[CraigAllen]

A client who wishes to keep her images from being copied has sent me information about an HTML Protector that encrypts entire websites. It is available from html-protector(dotcom) and I've looked it over. It seems to me that encrypting a site so that when you view source all you see is a bunch of random characters is not good from an SEO perspective ... isn't the code the important thing for spider food?

I've sent them (the protector software company) an email with that question and although they haven't had time to reply yet, I thought I'd throw this out in the SEO group here for input.

[SteveGerencser]

For the record, anything on the web can be copied.. If it can be seen, it can be copied.. All you would be doing is making is slightly harder, but not stopping anyone that really wants them.. If she is really that concerned about it, don't post them, or watermark them and forget about it..

[CraigAllen]

Yep, that's what I told her a couple of years ago and now she's watermarked her images so fully you can hardly see the image for the repetitive diagonal watermarks!

[danlefree]

I have done work for artists with similar concerns - usually they just need a printscreen demonstration to understand how futile it is to try to prevent people from retaining a copy of what they're being shown.

The problem here (IMHO) is not with the technology, but with the business practices or attitudes of the client.

If you have work to show then show it - go small/low-res with watermark if there is concern about plagiarists but keep in mind that if your work is worth putting your name on then it should also be worth using to promote your name.

One artist (painter/illustrator primarily working on clothing design and gallery pieces) I worked with expressed concern that people would use his art as their avatars on social networking sites; I was astounded. As an advertiser, I'd expect to pay handsomely for that kind of exposure...

(It's one thing if you make custom avatars and that's your business - otherwise it's just free advertising)

[kgun]

It seems to me that encrypting a site so that when you view source all you see is a bunch of random characters is not good from an SEO perspective ... isn't the code the important thing for spider food?

Chapter 20 "WebBots and cryptography" from the book Official Web Site: Webbots, Spiders, and Screen Scrapers, by Michael Schrenk

"Webbots, Spiders, and Screen Scrapers" may interest you.

Generally from a SEO standpoint, IMO it is not wise to encrypt a site / page. What you earn in less copying may be lost in less traffic.

[CraigAllen]

Just to update, I got a reply from the software company tonight:

"You've no need to worry - HTML-Protector shouldn't affect your search engine listings

The majority of search engines use what is actually rendered in the browser as the basis for their listings. As such, unless your use HTML-Protector to actually password protect your page, you shouldn't have a problem."

[kgun]

The majority of search engines use what is actually rendered in the browser as the basis for their listings.

My bolding.

Yes some SE software is more advanced than browser software.

As such, unless your use HTML-Protector to actually password protect your page, you shouldn't have a problem."

And WebBots can crawl password protected sites. See the above excellent book for further information. It may be one of the best books you read on this subject in late 2009.

[Jean-Luc]

I got a reply from the software company tonight:
"You've no need to worry - HTML-Protector shouldn't affect your search engine listings

I can hardly believe that. Can they provide any example of an encrypted page that ranks well on encrypted words ?

The encryption technique probably uses JavaScript. No doubt that search engines can execute JavaScript when they want to, but decoding this JavaScript stuff is consuming much more resources than decoding regular HTML code. Why would Google or any other search engine spend resources to decrypt such pages ?

Jean-Luc