T.J. wrote:
> "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?
Use it that way once or twice won't hurt the page.
> 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?
T.J. has a point.
> 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)
Very good T.J., you are sharp today.
> 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"
.... and you may even want toconsider getting a little more creative,
seeing that that word sequence has already been exhausted, try throwing
in a couple of real good stemmer keyword shuffle combo like ...
"So why not have style choices of imaged borders?" if that makes any
sense.
> 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 styleson
> hover.</a>"
I would do neither. I'd try something like "Here's the solution: how to
<a href>Get IE6 to Apply Image Border Styles on Hover</a>." note the
period after the closing anchor, power word Get starts the anchor text
and keywords Capitalized. In this way the link appears to be an
important one.
> Back to the code.
> Title is too long and you should try to work hover in to it somewhere
Also, too many special characters and punctuation in the Title. This is
the most valuable real estate on your web page. You have to derive a
Title that is intended to intringue the searcher and at the same time
give the search engine a clear indicator as to what to look for without
appearing spammy to either.
> Description is missing, might not be applicable for google
> positions yet, but always be prepared.
> Plus it is sometimes used.
I think you are not giving the Description tag enough value. An
effectively crafted Description can often mean the difference between
the web page being competitive in a keyphrase search environment or
not.
> Keywords are missing, same as above, you never know when
> the algo might change, be prepared.
Similar to above. We have disputed this here recently and I believe the
consensus was to keep it in for now. I certainly use it to try to
trigger a response from the search engines by force feeding it my
agenda. If it spits it out, well, it spits it out. Doesn't hurt nothing
to try. Other search engine still like it too. Yes there is life beyond
Googler and we will be seeing more of it shortly. Be prepared. Do what
the search engines tell you to do. I just had a big fight on Daniweb
about this with a guy named John. He turned out to be OK in the end but
we had a pretty good verbal scrap. Wanna read it
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread50905.html
> 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.
Unfortunately, T.J. has a point. Your web page suffers because you
adhere to strict standards. Truly noble, but a stumbling block for your
SEO. Is not the concept to aid the visually impaired?
> 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.
I may be incorrect, but I seem to recall discussing this one here
before. If my memory serves me right it boiled down to that it seems to
work well both ways for some and poorly both ways for others. It seems
to be one of those things that each web site situation needs to
determine itself.
> That's enough to be going on with, thanks
> for posting it.
Well, you did a fine job T.J. I actually had posted a response to this
earlier but it seems to have not made it to the group, a glitch along
the way.
http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html tonnie still
there?
Absolutely brilliant. This cannot be the same page I looked at last
week is it. If it is congratulations it is wonderful.
I was going to question your Description but changed my mind after
reviewing your Title and keywords a couple of times.
Of course I am going to find some things that catch my attention. Those
of the most concern to me are:
1. Things look well balanced in the <head>. Too many unnecessary tags
in the <head> for my likings but that is a designer choice more than
anything else, except this one, I can't seem to get myself pass it and
move on: <meta name="subject" content="webdesign, html structure,
searchengine optimisation"> what can I say. It is not spam because I
know you a little, it is getting a little stuffy in here ( if you know
what I mean ).
2. Be careful with symbols.
<span class="code">"en"</span> should be <span
class="code">"en"</span>
Webdesign & SEO consulting should be Webdesign & SEO consulting
3. <A HREF="/websitedesign/" title="Website design - webdesign and
Search engine optimisation">Webdesign & SEO consulting</a> I hope
this links to a web page about Webdesign & SEO consulting 'cause
that's the impression I'm getting from looking at the code. Actually,
this may be very good only because you have used this lightly. <A HREF
should be <a href lowercases, lowercases, lower ...
4. I don't know if this character will come out right in the Usenet
format but here goes :
· yep I think it is there, see it? Well anyway that is the character
you have decided to use to separate text at the bottom of the page. Not
a good choice as it is giving my validator warnings. I suggest
something else, I don't know what exactly, maybe :
Well that's about it for me, I guess. i did just have another look and
the presentation is extrememly pleasing. I can almost smell the daisy.
it's nice. I think that is my second run at critique for this page. The
talent is clearly evident, you got yourself a pretty nice looking web
page from my perspective. I would strongly recommend you for web design
work and feel confident that you could provide most excellent SEO as a
fringe benefit for choosing your design service.
take care all
--
Fred
http://www.rezultz-web-site-promotion.com/