 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / November 2007SEO and CSS
Hi I have been led to believe by a company specializeing in Search Engine Optimization, that it is good to use <div> tags and absolute positioning to keep all the elements on my web page in the same place, but these <div>'s can then be shunted about in order of the importance of the pages content. The idea is that the spiders only look at the first 200 characters of content. If your important text is not there, the search engines won't find it. This is proving very long winded - having to practically rewrite every web page I am given to optimize to use <div> tags and CSS. What do other members of the forum think? Stapes > I have been led to believe by a company specializeing in Search Engine > Optimization, They convert bullshit to money. > that it is good to use <div> tags and absolute positioning Drop the DIV element and use these fine elements http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html instead. Make sure that your page looks reasonable without any CSS. Like this one: http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html&strip=1 That's the way Google "sees" your page.  SignatureIn memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell > > I have been led to believe by a company specializeing in Search Engine > > Optimization, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Drop the DIV element and use these fine elements > http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html Can you be more specific? > instead. Make sure that your page looks reasonable without any CSS. > Like this one:http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/ol... > That's the way Google "sees" your page. > > -- > In memoriam Alan J. Flavellhttp://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell >> Drop the DIV element and use these fine elements >> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html > > Can you be more specific? Hardly. *You* know your page - I don't. Choose a specific element instead of the unspecific DIV. For the main heading, choose H1; for an ordinary paragraph, choose P; etc. SignatureTop-posting. What's the most irritating thing on Usenet? > >> Drop the DIV element and use these fine elements > >> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Top-posting. > What's the most irritating thing on Usenet? You obviously have no idea >>>> Drop the DIV element and use these fine elements >>>> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/olist.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You obviously have no idea Yes, he just said that: he has no idea what content is on your pages, therefore he's in no position to tell you how to mark it up. Did you come here for help or did you come here to pick fights? > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What do other members of the forum think? Shunting divs around is not as easy as it might sound. CSS "normal flow" is a process of fitting things in left to right (or right to left) and top to bottom in a mostly sensible fashion working to the width available (which is variable) and using a variable selection of fonts. The order and nesting in which elements are arranged in the document is fundamental to the result you get. You can't just swap things around. You can absolutely position everything but it's very crude and it's going to be very hard to get any sort of decent layout with that. To be honest, throwing away most of the useful things CSS can do for you based on a second-guessed notion of how search engine spiders work is pretty barking mad. Perhaps the SEO company just doesn't really understand how CSS layout works. What they're suggesting is simply not practical. Why not just aim to make sure that the first 200 characters or so do contain something important? > Why not just aim to make sure that the first 200 characters or so do > contain something important? That is the whole idea! Many of the websites I work on, the first 200 characters consists of the navigation menu and other stuff. The idea is to put the Content division first, and the Menu, Banner and Footer after. > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If your important text is not there, the search engines won't > find it. Think about it: How does putting your content into a collection of absolutely position DIVs alter which characters are the first 200 in your document? The whole thing is nonsense. Obviously, spiders look at the entire page. Otherwise, the page at http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case1.shtml wouldn't show up in a search for "balls of lightning", which occur not just after the 200th character on the page, but after the 200th word. > This is proving very long winded - having to practically rewrite every > web page I am given to optimize to use <div> tags and CSS. > > What do other members of the forum think? I think you should stop wasting your time. > The whole thing is nonsense. Obviously, spiders look at the entire page. > Otherwise, the page at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't show up in a search for "balls of lightning", which occur not > just after the 200th character on the page, but after the 200th word. Crap - Google couldn't find it! The purpose of SEO is to get your website to the top of the searches. After looking thru 23 pages of search results for 'Balls of Lightning' I gave up. > The purpose of SEO is to get your website to the top of the searches. > After looking thru 23 pages of search results for 'Balls of Lightning' > I gave up. Perhaps so, but the hypothesis here is that spiders don't _look_ at anything beyond 200 characters, implying that the site wouldn't be listed at all. As it is rated _somewhere_, then the spider must have at least looked that far. This isn't a site optimised for "balls of lightning", so it's not surprising that it's not highly rated for it. >> Otherwise, the page at >> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case1.shtml >> wouldn't show up in a search for "balls of lightning", which occur not >> just after the 200th character on the page, but after the 200th word. > > Crap - Google couldn't find it! http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case1.shtml+ balls.of.lightning SignatureIn memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell > >> Otherwise, the page at > >> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case1.shtml [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_c... That does not count - that is not a proper google search. > -- > In memoriam Alan J. Flavellhttp://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell >>>> Otherwise, the page at >>>> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case1.shtml [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That does not count - that is not a proper google search. Andreas was just demonstrating to you (before I came through with my reply), since you said you hadn't been able to find the page in Google, that it has indeed been indexed by Google. >> The whole thing is nonsense. Obviously, spiders look at the entire page. >> Otherwise, the page at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Crap - Google couldn't find it! Excuse me? That's *how* I found that page. OK, I'll do it again: I'm running a Google search on "balls of lightning" (including the double quotes), and it's 98th on the list. > The purpose of SEO is to get your website to the top of the searches. Yes, but irrelevant since I wasn't addressing the purpose of SEO or how pages get to the *top* of searches. I was addressing your remarks: "The idea is that the spiders only look at the first 200 characters of content. If your important text is not there, the search engines won't find it." Obviously Google looks beyond 200 characters, and obviously it found the phrase I queried it for even when it wasn't within the first 200 characters. So that's settled, but if what you want to talk about is *ranking*, well, that's a different thing from *indexing* and *finding* (although of course they are *prerequisites* for ranking). > After looking thru 23 pages of search results for 'Balls of Lightning' > I gave up. Did you query for the phrase (with double quotes around it) or did you just type the words without double quotes? >> Hi >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > absolutely position DIVs alter which characters are the first 200 in > your document? Presumably, that would be the "shunted about in order of the importance" part of this scheme. > The whole thing is nonsense. Indeed. SEO is nothing more than snake-oil. People write markup that's so full of errors that search engines can't make heads or tails of it, or which uses so much Flash and other graphics that there's literally no text to index. Then, instead of fixing the real problem, they try to "optimize" their site for search engines. >> What do other members of the forum think? > > I think you should stop wasting your time. Indeed. Valid markup and meaningful content are all search engines need. sherm-- SignatureWV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > >> Hi > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are talking rubbish man. Web sites that we have optimized go from nowhere in the rankings to the top. That is hardly snake oil. And valid markup is essential to get on with Google. >> Indeed. Valid markup and meaningful content are all search engines >> need. > > You are talking rubbish man. Web sites that we have optimized *"we"* have optimized ? But you are the originator of this thread, and said, "I have been led to believe by a company specializeing [sic] in Search Engine Optimization, ..." So ... is this "we" your company? And you were actually spamming here? Or are you selling SEO and wondering how to do it? "having to practically rewrite every web page I am given to optimize to use <div> tags and CSS." Ah. You've been *hired* by a snak^WSEO company and want to know how to do your new job? > go from nowhere in the rankings to the top. That is hardly snake oil. > And valid markup is essential to get on with Google. Valid markup is always a grand idea. I'll give you that one. (amazing how one little phrase can completely change the thought process... "Web sites that we have optimized") Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck On 22 Nov, 14:26, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote: > >> Indeed. Valid markup and meaningful content are all search engines > >> need. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -bts > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck Yes, I optimize web sites as part of my job. Yes, I talk to other companies who specialize in SEO. Yes, I am trying to discover the best way to do my job. >> Ah. You've been *hired* by a snak^WSEO company and want to know how to >> do your new job? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, I talk to other companies who specialize in SEO. > Yes, I am trying to discover the best way to do my job. Ah, ok. So you don't work for the snak^WSEO company, and you've already realized selling "SEO" is really snak^W, um, all a matter of using proper semantic HTML elements (instead of suffering from div-itis), keeping all presentation in CSS, and writing strong content. Good for you. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck On 22 Nov, 15:19, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote: > Ah, ok. So you don't work for the snak^WSEO company, I'd always wondered, what does the "E" in SEO stand for? 8-) >> Ah, ok. So you don't work for the snak^WSEO company, > > I'd always wondered, what does the "E" in SEO stand for? 8-) SnakEOil SignatureI used to believe in reincarnation in a former life. > You are talking rubbish man. Web sites that we have optimized go from > nowhere in the rankings to the top. That is hardly snake oil. And > valid markup is essential to get on with Google. Really? Let's experiment. Today being Thanksgiving Day here in the U.S., I Googled {turkey}, the traditional main dish at the holiday meal. Well, I got Wikipedia's page for the country Turkey, but anyway the W3C validator returned 13 validation errors. Since Wikipedia seems to be the first hit for almost any term this days, let me look at the first non-Wikipedia result: http://www.tourismturkey.org/. 37 errors. Let's try the first non-Wiki result for {"search engine optimization"}: www.submitexpress.com. Wow, 303 errors! The next one down is www.seochat.com. 314 errors! Amazing! Next: http://www.bruceclay.com/web_rank.htm. OK, only one error this time. But the next one, http://www.inteliture.com/, has 37 errors. Finally, the one after that, http://www.seoinc.com/, is valid. But then the next one, http://www.submitawebsite.com/, has 53 errors, and the next, http://www.customermagnetism.com/, couldn't even be validated because it came with no indication of its character encoding so the validator tried UTF-8 and failed because there was at least one non-UTF-8 character. The next one, http://www.addme.com/, failed 27 times, and then http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2167921 had a whopping 429 validation errors. And so on. So, while I have no evidence for a claim that for a specific page, with all other things being equal, valid code won't likely result in a higher ranking than invalid code, it *is* clear that invalid code, even highly invalid code, can still reach the top of the list. Stapes: > I have been led to believe by a company specializeing in Search Engine > Optimization, that it is good to use <div> tags and absolute > positioning to keep all the elements on my web page in the same place, > but these <div>'s can then be shunted about in order of the importance > of the pages content. Fine idea. For example, you might have links you want to appear at the top of a page but you don't want the links to occur before the main text in the source. It does not follow, however, that it is good to use DIVs and absolute positioning. -- Jock > I have been led to believe by a company specializeing in Search Engine > Optimization, One day I might meet someone claiming to do SEO who _isn't_ full of bullshit. It hasn't happened yet though. (Anyone else hear Radio4's Laurie Taylor talking to one this week?) > it is good to use <div> tags and absolute positioning It's _never_ good to use absolute positioning. Sometimes it's unavoidable and you live with the downsides despite. You certainly shouldn't screw around with absolute positioning to meet some half-arsed idea of SEO voodoo. > The idea is that the spiders only look at the first 200 characters of > content. Laughable Good spiders also look at the CSS, so as to spot some of the forms of spamdexing. > but these <div>'s can then be shunted about in order of the importance > of the pages content. That has _some_ arguable benefit for accessibility, where you move the "urgent" stuff upwards, so that linearized processes (e.g. screen readers) get to it first. Note that "urgent" doesn't mean quite the same thing as "important". Do good, valid, semantic markup and leave the voodoo to the SEO snake- oilers. > One day I might meet someone claiming to do SEO who _isn't_ full of > bullshit. It hasn't happened yet though. > > (Anyone else hear Radio4's Laurie Taylor talking to one this week?) Is that online somewhere? I could use a laugh... :-) sherm-- SignatureWV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > > (Anyone else hear Radio4's Laurie Taylor talking to one this week?) > > Is that online somewhere? I could use a laugh... :-) Might be here somewhere http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed/ > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Stapes I've broken every so-called rule and I still have sites that are in the top 5 or 10. It's not where you have tags placed that makes a difference but instead how much information you have and if that information is useful enough for people to come back and look a second time. There's this other thingy out there that you have to have a lot of other websites linking to your site to make it in the top 10 (Google will even tell you this is true, but it's not - very few people write websites so it's silly to think this is true). I have one site that has virtually no links from other sites and it's #3 (last time I checked) so getting linked may help you get started but other websites drop links faster than you can spin a bottle so it's impossible to keep up with that kind of nonsense. Think of it this way, you know how they say in business, it's location, location, location. On the web, it's content, content and content. Google will find your entire page if you have something worth indexing and you can break all the rules. Pat > Google will find your entire page if you have something worth indexing That part is true. > and you can break all the rules. ..but not that part. Try stuffing a mess of keywords in your content set to .. oh .. font-size: 1px, or white-on-white colors or sumpin' similar. I've seen a number of sites that did just that (look for a seemingly empty area on a page), and googling for a real key phrase doesn't show the site. At least in my experience. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck > ..but not that part. Try stuffing a mess of keywords in your content set > to .. oh .. font-size: 1px, or white-on-white colors or sumpin' similar. > I've seen a number of sites that did just that (look for a seemingly > empty area on a page), and googling for a real key phrase doesn't show > the site. At least in my experience. Sure they do, just through in five or six negative search terms and then start paging to the tenth or so page (100 results/page). I routinely crawl searches down through several thousands to find a search. Heck, I've even gotten those pages at the top, but not through natural search patterns people would be looking for. SignatureBeware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth >> Google will find your entire page if you have something worth indexing > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > empty area on a page), and googling for a real key phrase doesn't show > the site. At least in my experience. I stand corrected. I too have seen sites that try to fool Google by breaking the rules but I was assuming most people who read this don't use CSS to fool Google because someone like me will see the site, notify Google and it'll be eliminated from their index. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.