tonnie wrote:

> Els schreef:
>> ** reposted in new thread on CanadaFred's request **
>>
>> [http://www.nrac.co.uk/test/]
>> canadafred wrote:
>>> T.J. is experimenting with various things he thinks is SEO techniques
>>> and want opinions on the techniques. I tried to explain that an SEO
>>> technique mostly involves the content and what he has provided is the
>>> skeleton for the content. We all agree that the skeleton is spammy
>>> looking and much is over-repetitive because it is a template and not
>>> filled in, will it work ... I think it could provided that the content
>>> justified the skeleton.
>>
>> Meaning - he would have to write a substantial amount of SEO related
>> content in between what he already has, but without mentioning the
>> word SEO ;-)
>>
>>> So for T.J., I personally am struggling with figuring out a way to move
>>> you onto some other discussion. I thought about this this morning and
>>> why don't you request an SEO critique on some of your existing work.
>>> Real matter is just easier to analyze that the hypothetical.
>>
>> Yup, agreed.
>>
>> Since I think it was T.J.'s idea that more of us would show something
>> to critique - I'll submit this one:
>> http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery...s-on-hover.php
>>
>> It's a set of 3 interlinked pages (see pagination at the top), and my
>> goal was not to get the best SERPS for one keyword, but to be found on
>> several different descriptions for the same problem.
>>
>> Some people say 'hover', others use 'mouseover', etc. I didn't want
>> people who search for either to be left in the dark. ATM no one finds
>> me, but that should be a matter of time, and perhaps slight changes to
>> the content, although I'd rather leave it as is.
>>
>> Varying results so far:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=image...s+on+mouseover
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=image...tyles+on+hover
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=image+styles+on+hover
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=image...s+on+mouseover
>>
>> But no results yet when swapping the order of the words around.
>
> Hi Els,
>
> Nice clean page and well structured.
>
> A few points i noticed:
>
> - no description
> - no keywords

Believe it or not - I tend to forget those...

> - numbers for links

They are there for the visitor to easily see that each page is part of
a 3-page set. Further down in the content the same links are spelled
out with words. Is it bad that there are number links on the page at
all?

> - no headers

You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
headers in?

> - make your title as short as possible
> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus ©2005
> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer

I know there is no need, but I like it that way. Is it bad for SEO or
any other reason?

> - to me there are, i can see you use johns technique of 'no menu'
> on the page, not enough further options.

No, I don't know of John's 'no menu' technique. The sole reason for
the plain page, is that they are example pages, and if I add a menu
with styling, those styles will interfere with the styles of the
examples. This is not true for all examples btw, but I want to keep
the collection rather uniform.

The horizontal navigation at the top only holds 'home' and 'css',
because I don't think my portfolio or my contact details are part of
CSS examples. I feel it's a separate part of the site, and I offer a
home link for anyone who wants to go back to the rest of the site.

> all more or less minor points, but this one isn't:
>
> - to long dokument name

I've been struggling with that one. The last word is needed to
differentiate between the 3 pages. So you suggest I make it shorter,
like for instance "border-styles" ? That doesn't indicate IE, nor
hover. I'm all for shorter urls, but I also want to be able to see
what it's about. Generic is good, but too generic isn't I think.

> It's oke to give a good hint in the name of the dokument to tell what it
> is about. This one however is to long IMHO

I agree, that it appears too long - I just don't know what I can leave
out without losing the meaning and specificity.

> ie-image-border-styles-on-hover-solution.php
>
> In the last part of his post Matt Cutts points to the use of these
> stretched filled with words URl's:
>
> http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dashes-vs-underscores/

I may be missing the point - he is saying that Google does not
penalize dashes, not even when there are many, and I think his last
point has more to do with long domain names than with long urls?

From what I read there, the above url is perfect for SEO...

> So far so good, here is my contribution:
>
> http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html

Not much I can say about that one. Nice page, clever use of the words
html and structure, without appearing spammy. Good absence of language
flags in the top right ;-)

The only thing I would advise, is to add at least one more keyword:
optimization with a z. Perhaps also optimise and optimize. Not sure if
that would become spammy though, but I'd certainly make sure that if
you use one of those words with an s, to also include it spelled with
a z. (optimization comes up 279,000,000 times in Google, while
optimisation 'only' gets 47,800,000 results)

And I would split internetpresentation into two words :-)

(I take it you're still gonna add the instructions that are already in
the Dutch version and partly in the German version?)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Greenslade - What Are You Doin' To Me