canadafred wrote:
> T.J. wrote:

[http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery...-on-hover.php]

>> 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 ...

I think that if I would do that, it would start to look spammy, and my
goal is a clear tutorial, not a SEO example page as such. I'll use
SEO, but not to the point of sacrificing the visitor's experience. I
want them to have a short and clear read - not using 5 sentences where
1 would already get the point across.

> "So why not have style choices of imaged borders?" if that makes any
> sense.

Eh.. it doesn't ;-)
It would bring up an entirely different subject.

>> 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>"
>
> 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.

I won't capitalize link text, as links are not headers. The only
headers I'll capitalize, are those that make sense capitalized, like
song titles, book titles, and sometimes page titles. Not link texts.
Besides, if capitalized words look important to Google - how are
German pages doing in Google?

>> 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.

Are you talking about @ and (c) in the <title> element, or about the
acronym in the <h1>? I think both don't take away information from the
searcher, and if Google is bothered by a questionmark, an acronym tag
or a copyright symbol, well, so be it.

Maybe I'm missing something?

>> 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.

In case of not enough content on the page, it is certainly a good idea
to have a good descriptive saying-it-all value in the description
meta, since Google will display that in the SERPS.
I will put them in later, I just forgot...

>> 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.

Eh?

> Truly noble, but a stumbling block for your
> SEO. Is not the concept to aid the visually impaired?

As in my answer to T.J., yes, that image could do with a useful
description of its purpose on the page. How is that against strict
standards?

> http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html tonnie still
> there?

I doubt he has left! :-)

[big snip, as I figure Tonnie will reply to the original, rather than
this copy :-)]

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