Els wrote:
> >> 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.
I thought this was an exercise in SEO critique.
It's all about balance. I was under the impression that you wanted to
score well for various combination of your keywords. In order to do so
these words should be fortified and opportunities for the search
engines to see the various combinations of words that you want it to
score you for should be presented to the search engines.
Now if you are not so much interested anymore then it doesn't matter
now does it?
> > "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.
Perhaps, but "style" would reinforce "styles", "imaged" : image and
"borders" : border. These are stemmers variations of words. The search
engines will reward your keywords if they can decipher the stemmers,
which in my meaningless example is trying to demonstrate to you. The
exact wording only you know what will be acceptable. Challenge yourself
and attempt to stick in a logical "stemmer keyword shuffle combo" for
better search engine response.
> >> 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?
I understand your concerns completely. This page is in English. If you
standards dictate that this is unacceptable then it is unacceptable.
Never sacrifice your design principles over SEO. My point here is
mostly to always try to seek an innovative solution to empowering a
word internally within your own content.
> >> 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?
Maybe. I am trying to tell you to use your Title wisely. This usually
is the second impression that the search engine will have about your
site ( the first being the conditions of the link that encouraged to
spider to show up ).
> >> 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...
I'm glad to hear that.
> >> 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?
alt attribute text can be used in SEO as well as in design. When done
well, it is indisputably a good technique.
--
Fred
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/