"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:1up89fabrx60s.1hcd9qcq4jhk3.dlg@40tude.net...
> ** 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.
>


Thanks,
This is more like it, and reminds me of how this group used to be.
Assuming these 3 pages are targeting
"image border styles on hover" and similar derivatives.

First thing I would say is,
Instead of just using the "skip to content" why not use
"skip to information about image border styles on hover"
would that be considered to spammy?

Next, why have
"Locus Optimus accessible web design" in the <h1> tag?
Would it not be better to have
"How to get IE6 to apply image border styles on hover (mouseover)?"
as the main header?

In the phrase
"Every now and then, someone pops up in a newsgroup, asking why
the borders on linked images won't change colour on hover in
Internet Explorer 6, despite setting explicit styles for them."

It would be optimised better if you worked the target phrase in to
the question asked and put it in <strong> tags

"Every now and then, someone pops up in a newsgroup asking,
<strong>How do I set image border styles to change colour
when hovered over in IE6?</strong>
Even though they have explicitly set styles for them."
(or words to that effect)

I think you would be justified to put your line
"So why don't they get applied, and what can be done about it?"
in a header tag
and also it should be a little more descriptive
instead of saying "why don't they"
I would replace it with "why don't image border styles"

I would break up the next line
"Here's the <a href>solution: get IE6 to apply image border styles on
hover.</a>"
and replace it with
"Here's the solution: <a href>How to get IE6 to apply image border styles on
hover.</a>"

Back to the code.
Title is too long and you should try to work hover in to it somewhere

Description is missing, might not be applicable for google
positions yet, but always be prepared.
Plus it is sometimes used.

Keywords are missing, same as above, you never know when
the algo might change, be prepared.

You don't use geourl in your metatags, this can be very useful

Alt attributes are "", we know your views on this, but it would
be better for SEO if you tried to work the keywords in a little bit.

I see you just link using,
<a href="ie-image-border-styles-on-hover-solution.php
rather than using the full url.
This is something I would like to see tested more, not sure if
we have ever discussed whether linking this way or with the
complete URL in is best, or whether it makes no difference.

That's enough to be going on with, thanks
for posting it.