To me that sounds like, if you have a Flash site, and you want it to be SEO, then if you render to google an html page with the same textual content as the flash swf, then you are safe. As long as I am not "with the intent to deceive search engines" and am not "including substantially different content in the alternate [flash] element", am I safe? Is that legitimate? Has anyone verified this?
I also get from that set of webmaster guidelines that it would be acceptable to redirect a url like site.com/home.html to site.com/#/home for flash users, because the intent is not to deceive and if they are only differing by the "View", with the "Model" staying the same, is that legitimate?
They say in that article too:
... so it seems like this would be a legitimate solution, no? That is, redirecting users to the appropriate flash url, and rendering html for necessary accessibility and SEO.
I understand the malicious-ness that can arise out of sneakyness and cloaking, but that is definitely not the intent. I am looking for something more along the lines of, how could I accomplish this without google getting angry?
I honestly don't see how google would be able to tell if I added something in Rails that checked for the user agent and rendered a flash-less html page for google using something like this: turn off rails sessions for robots. If I checked for the user agent and only redirected the user, not the google bot, would google be able to see that?