tonnie <t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:

> A few points i noticed:
>

[..]

> - make your title as short as possible

I have so far always used either the same as I use in h1, or a longer
version. Works for me. I doubt it gets better when I make them shorter
(IIRC it got better when I made some longer).

I do have the feeling that important words in front is a good thing.
Also a long title works if it is not just repeating the same stuff with
different words.

Good (IMO):

Pictures of Florida Bark scorpions (Centruroides Gracilis) from
Veracruz.

I would give this a h1 of:

Pictures of Florida Bark scorpions

and I have a "remark" thingy, where I probably would mention: Veracruz.


> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus &copy;2005
> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer

Personally I wouldn't put it anywhere, (c) is something you just get, no
need to mention it. (It isn't going to stop a single soul).

The Locus Optimus is important IMO, and I recommend to use it somewhere
on the page. In the title it might drop off in SEs. IIRC it is already
in use on the page, in a good place.

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

"My" "no menu" technique often has Related links at the bottom of a page
or section.

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

Question is: do SEs care about the length? I don't see that my long
names score worse. Nor if they repeat a part of the uRL (e.g.
perl/perlprogrammer.html) In short: I doubt it. The visitor doesn't care
about length that much.

> 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/
>
> So far so good, here is my contribution:

I scanned fast the page, only saw a no no for very long domain names
with as much keywords as possible.

I have seen wordpress blogs creating urls very similar to the one Els is
using. I probably have longer ones. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

--
John isa Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html

Fox G Bar: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/google-...stomizing.html

"T.J." <no1@home.invalid> wrote:

> 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?

Imagine it is read aloud to you. Do you like to hear such long sentencens
every time?

> 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?

IMO, yes.

[...]

> 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 have explained this in the past IIRC, it makes no difference. The UA
does the URL fixing thing and next breaks it into bits again.

requests are of the form:

GET /.......

and the domain name is send in a different header (if at all for very
antique UAs).

So even if you link to bar.html, and you're "in" foo the request will
always be of the form:

GET /foo/bar.html

Ditto for http://example.com/foo/bar.html:

GET /foo/bar.html

Finally: how can this be abused in any way (or why would Google prefer one
form over another)? I would even say that the shorter form is better,
because it saves bytes for the user :-D.

--
John

Net::Google and Perl: http://johnbokma.com/perl/net-google.html

"canadafred" <canadian_web@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> 2. Be careful with symbols.
> <span class="code">"en"</span> should be <span
> class="code">&quot;en&quot;</span>

AFAIK: not really. Note that ",', and even > as content for elements is
legal. Moreover: A parser (googlebot) will internally always decode &quot;
into ", so there is no advantage IMO

> Webdesign & SEO consulting should be Webdesign &amp; SEO consulting

Yup. Since the validator insists on this. IMO and technically each UA
should be able to get that & followed by a space is not special :-)

> 3. <A HREF="/websitedesign/" title="Website design - webdesign and
> Search engine optimisation">Webdesign &amp; SEO consulting</a> I hope
> this links to a web page about Webdesign &amp; 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 ...

For HTML this doesn't (case insensitive) matter. For XHTML it does, and
then you're very right. Personally I stick to lower case, it reads more
pleasantly :->

[..]

--
John isa Perl programmer: http://johnbokma.com/perl/perlprogrammer.html

Fox G Bar: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/google-...stomizing.html

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 **

>> 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.

Correct, but including the term IE and Internet Explorer.

> 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?

It would possibly confuse the visitor. Since it is meant for visitors
who are not scanning the page visually, it might lead them to believe
it would skip to only part of the content, skipping another part.
I would use such a sentence if I'd have more than one subject on the
page I think.

> 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?

Yes. That is, it has crossed my mind. Often enough when designing
sites, I put the title of the site in <div id="logo">, and the first
header of the page in the <h1>. I don't remember exactly why I didn't
do that on this site, probably because I want the words 'accessible
web design' to be picked up by Google more than any of the page
titles.

> 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)

Makes sense, although I'd prefer to only put in the <strong> tags,
without changing the form of the sentence.

> 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"

Noted.

> 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>"

That would mean the three pages end up with much the same title in the
links to them, while I wanted three different ones. Hence, the word
solution into the link that points to the solution. Also because
people may Google for the solution rather than the problem.

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

:-)
Sounds like "make it shorter, put more words in" <g>

I chose to put mouseover in there instead of hover, because although
it really is a hover effect, many people use the JavaScript word
'mouseover' for the same thing. I take it that the part you find too
long, is the @ Locus Optimus (c)2005 ?

> 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.

Yes, description and keywords simply were forgotten :\

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

geourl? Wazzat?

> 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.

As in <img src="images/poppy.jpg" alt="image to show the (non)effect
of styles on hover in IE"> ?

Thanks, somehow that didn't come up in my mind when writing the page.
(was just thinking: irrelevant that it is a poppy, so no need for alt)

> 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.

Even if it would be better to have the full url (which I don't think),
I wouldn't change it, simply because it would cause problems between
my local and online versions during testing. I keep everything
relative, so I can move stuff around without hassle.

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

Thank you for the review, much appreciated :-)

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

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/

John Bokma schreef:
> tonnie <t.prasing@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>> A few points i noticed:
>>
>
> [..]
>
>> - make your title as short as possible
>
> I have so far always used either the same as I use in h1, or a longer
> version. Works for me. I doubt it gets better when I make them shorter
> (IIRC it got better when I made some longer).

Might be, i have seen slight shifts in ranking if the title was to long.
>
> I do have the feeling that important words in front is a good thing.
> Also a long title works if it is not just repeating the same stuff with
> different words.
>
> Good (IMO):
>
> Pictures of Florida Bark scorpions (Centruroides Gracilis) from
> Veracruz.

Jepp, its a good one and not to long. It reflects the content of the
page, if its about scorpions from Veracruz and the specimen Florida Bark
that is.

In Els case i meant the copyright notice and name of the site. These do
weaken the keywords in the title.

Next to that, a title is meant to give the page a theme. If it is trying
to catch a large amount of keywords, each seperate keyword will get less
important. All IMHO.

> I would give this a h1 of:
> Pictures of Florida Bark scorpions
> and I have a "remark" thingy, where I probably would mention: Veracruz.

I agree, same goes for me.

>
>> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus &copy;2005
>> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer
>
> Personally I wouldn't put it anywhere, (c) is something you just get, no
> need to mention it. (It isn't going to stop a single soul).

There is a lot of fuss about it. And some say it is necessary to
explicitly mention it on a page under English law. Others say it isn't.

Any way, i feel it doesn't belong in the title.

> The Locus Optimus is important IMO, and I recommend to use it somewhere
> on the page. In the title it might drop off in SEs. IIRC it is already
> in use on the page, in a good place.
>
>> - to me there are, i can see you use johns technique of 'no menu'
>> on the page, not enough further options.
>
> "My" "no menu" technique often has Related links at the bottom of a page
> or section.

Jepp, but mostly few.

>> all more or less minor points, but this one isn't:
>>
>> - to long dokument name
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> Question is: do SEs care about the length? I don't see that my long
> names score worse. Nor if they repeat a part of the uRL (e.g.
> perl/perlprogrammer.html) In short: I doubt it. The visitor doesn't care
> about length that much.

I as a visitor don't care about it either. But i always have a little
'be carefull' when someone points at this, espacially if it is some one
like Matt.

>> 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/
>>
>> So far so good, here is my contribution:
>
> I scanned fast the page, only saw a no no for very long domain names
> with as much keywords as possible.

Did mention 'practice and preach' early on.

> I have seen wordpress blogs creating urls very similar to the one Els is
> using. I probably have longer ones. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I am still testing and tend to the short ones.


--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

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/

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

Jepp, not during the night though.

> Absolutely brilliant. This cannot be the same page I looked at last
> week is it. If it is congratulations it is wonderful.

It is. I altered the looks a few weeks ago, the old design might still
have been in your cache.

I use as strict separation between markup and presentation - HTML and
CSS. By altering the stylesheet i can give the page a completly
different look without even having to change a bit in the documents
themselves.

Thanks for the compliment.

> 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 ).

Yepp, know what you mean. And no it isn't meant to spam. I keep them
very descriptive and see what gets picked up by the search engines.

> 2. Be careful with symbols.
> <span class="code">"en"</span> should be <span
> class="code">&quot;en&quot;</span>

I see what you mean, but don't worry, the pages are delivered as
iso-8859-01 so it should be oke.

> Webdesign & SEO consulting should be Webdesign &amp; SEO consulting

Yes, but it is, or did i mis it somewhere?

> 3. <A HREF="/websitedesign/" title="Website design - webdesign and
> Search engine optimisation">Webdesign &amp; SEO consulting</a> I hope
> this links to a web page about Webdesign &amp; 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 ...

Yes it is linking to the main page of the English section and since the
whole section is generally about webdesign and seo.

<A HREF .... sloppy sloppy

Technicaly it doesn't matter, but it's not very nice coded i agree.


> 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 :

It doesn't give a warning in W3C's validator and even the Lynx -viewer
has no problems with it.

> 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.

Thank's!

> take care all

You to!


--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

Andrew Heenan wrote:
> "Els" wrote ...
> > Yes, but my question remains: how does my adhering to strict standards
> > hurt the SEO?
>
> It will not hurt you in SEO terms; it is safer; some of the keyword stuffing
> and ALT abuse that has been suggested could severely damage your SEO
> (Especially if reported by a rival!).
>
> Adhering to strict standards is usually quite SEO-friendly, and will
> invariably give you better, risk-free results in the medium or long term.
>
> Spam techniques unarguably have a short term advantage, which you must weigh
> against the risks and your personal standards.

This sounds like very good advice Andrew except that it limits Els'
ability to challenge other keyphrase competitors in the SERPs, at this
stage of her game. She needs to get her pages to qualify for the top
positions in a bigger arena. Sure, she could spend years regimentally
standardizing code to her highest calibers and eventually have
accumulated a substantial enough amount of incredible standardized code
to sustain good SERP positions, The again, maybe not, maybe it'll be
SERP oblivion for her web pages. She wants more keyphrases at the top
than what she has already established and I would suspect she wants
them this century.

I totally agree with you Andrew on the need to remain ethical, but SEO
is often about pushing the limits of acceptibility. At this stage of
her SERP performance, I think she should take the risk and make some
sacrifices.

She has come to us wanting to know how to achieve more keyphrase
dynamicability. The web site needs to become dynamic, evolving too from
being more search engine friendly during this initial period of time to
being more visitor friendly during another period of time. Ultimately,
a balance needs to be met whereas both are very satisfied with the
content of the web pages. This balance we hope Els can discover soon.
If today Els decides to empower her web site with acceptable techniques
that the search engines request us SEO to use properly, then only they
can truly determine if its ethical nature.

To our eyes it may appear spammy or it may not appear to be spammy.
That really doesn't matter now does it? It all boils down to how the
SEO techniques are applied and how the search engines respond to them.
Els will need to find her own balance, in time.

I say get innovative and push it Els. Live on the edge until you haver
established the web site's credibility, then adjust over time by
carefully observing the search engines' ( not just Google )responses.

This is a discussion about SEO and it's relationship with design
standards and the response of Els' SEO from the search engines. SEO
stands for search engine optimization which originally meant
optimization of code for the search engines.

Els, do you want to design, optimize or both?

--
all the best Fred
http://canadian-web-site-promotion.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:07:03 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl>
wrote:

>tonnie wrote:
>>> Note to self: re-read pages on an
>>> early morning about a week after a 'nightly build' ;-)
>>
>> Jepp, do that, everything looks better
>
>Up to here I was agreeing...
>
>> with a nice cup of coffee
>
>.. and then you spoilt it!
>
>Nothing will look good with a cup of coffee, regardless what time of
>day. Coffee is bad! ;-)
>
>> in the morning. Not to early that is.
>
>Indeed. Too early in the morning is just as bad as late at night.
>Tea helps though. Not coffee (yuk!) but a good mug of strong Tea with
>milk and sugar. Or two.

It's all caffeine, Els. You might as well mainline some Red Bull.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-services.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/baby-gund/index.html
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/jul...et-posters.htm