Forward to URL or in frame for search engines?

[robertsaunders]

I am setting up a basic site for a friend who is starting a small business. To keep costs down she has just purchased the domain name which then forwards to some free webspace. The domain name host provides two options for forwarding: 1) using a frame, so that the original address stays in the address bar, and 2) without a frame so that the URL of the free webspace appears in the address bar after forwarding.

Which option would be best for the purpose of search engine recognition of the site, or will it make no difference? When I submit the site to search engines, should I use the paid-for domain URL, or the free space URL where the site is actually hosted?

Would appreciate any advice anyone can offer with this.

Thanks,

Rob

[Schmoopy]

I would definitely go with a frame, it looks much more professional - if people see that it's hosted on a free webspace they will take the business less seriously in my opinion.

[Twey]

I would take the frame far less seriously. A free Web site hosted on FreeWebs might suggest a certain lack of professionalism, but abusing frames in that manner shows a blatant disregard for (or perhaps a lack of knowledge of) accessibility, which is a much graver error — and yes, the frame would also be considerably less search-engine–friendly, although personally I'd be more worried about how much less human-friendly it is.

I hear 000webhost.com (http://www.000webhost.com/) are a good Web host. They allow the use of your own domains, and are donation-supported — so you needn't pay anything unless you feel it's worth it. This way you can set up the site properly with no need for such hacks, but without paying extra for the space (although if you find them useful, tipping is strongly encouraged :)).

[Schmoopy]

I don't agree, if you mean like an <iframe> with no border, so any average user will not be able to see it's obviously a frame then how is it any less professional than going to the actual URL?

[Twey]

If by 'average user' you mean someone browsing visually with support for frames, there will probably be two downsides:

Bookmarking gets broken.
The search engine page has no useful content on it.
For non-visual users and users without frame support, the issues are more serious: the site may be entirely inaccessible to them, depending on their setup.

[djr33]

Twey, yes, that is the average user. And yes there are downsides, but it will look better than forwarding to some unknown free host.

I agree that the frame will look better, but not by much.

If this is a business, then put some money into it and get a real host that will let you use a domain. If it's a business, let's assume it'll make a profit of $10 per month and you can still keep $5 after hosting. Really there's no excuse not to get a real host when you want to get people to trust you with their money.

For the users, the frame will be less, well, cheap. But for search engines, bookmarking and compatibility, a frame will cause problems. Neither is really a solution.

Furthermore, a frame won't be taken seriously by a search engine, but a free host will not be either, so neither one is the answer to your question.

[Twey]

Twey, yes, that is the average user. And yes there are downsides, but it will look better than forwarding to some unknown free host.I don't think most people will care what host it's on. I'm curious as to the line of thinking that leads to the conclusion that making an inaccessible, hackish site that breaks basic browser functionality is better than having 'freewebs' in the address bar.
Furthermore, a frame won't be taken seriously by a search engine, but a free host will not be either, so neither one is the answer to your question.That's untrue: search engines do not (or at least Google doesn't) really bias on the basis of host. The top result for "teach yourself japanese" on Google is the Geocities mirror of Takasugi's page.
If this is a business, then put some money into it and get a real host that will let you use a domain. If it's a business, let's assume it'll make a profit of $10 per month and you can still keep $5 after hosting. Really there's no excuse not to get a real host when you want to get people to trust you with their money.Generally so, but in this case, as I said above, it's not an issue: there are free hosts that will allow proper use of a domain.

[robertsaunders]

Thank you for your replies. Most helpful, as always.