** 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.

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

Now playing: Greenslade - An English Western

Els schreef:
> ** 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.

Hi Els,

Nice clean page and well structured.

A few points i noticed:

- no description
- no keywords
- numbers for links
- no headers
- make your title as short as possible
no need to use this @ Locus Optimus ©2005
put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer

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

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

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:


http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html


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

tonnie wrote:

> Els schreef:
>> ** 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.
>
> Hi Els,
>
> Nice clean page and well structured.
>
> A few points i noticed:
>
> - no description
> - no keywords

Believe it or not - I tend to forget those...

> - numbers for links

They are there for the visitor to easily see that each page is part of
a 3-page set. Further down in the content the same links are spelled
out with words. Is it bad that there are number links on the page at
all?

> - no headers

You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
headers in?

> - make your title as short as possible
> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus ©2005
> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer

I know there is no need, but I like it that way. Is it bad for SEO or
any other reason?

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

No, I don't know of John's 'no menu' technique. The sole reason for
the plain page, is that they are example pages, and if I add a menu
with styling, those styles will interfere with the styles of the
examples. This is not true for all examples btw, but I want to keep
the collection rather uniform.

The horizontal navigation at the top only holds 'home' and 'css',
because I don't think my portfolio or my contact details are part of
CSS examples. I feel it's a separate part of the site, and I offer a
home link for anyone who wants to go back to the rest of the site.

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

I've been struggling with that one. The last word is needed to
differentiate between the 3 pages. So you suggest I make it shorter,
like for instance "border-styles" ? That doesn't indicate IE, nor
hover. I'm all for shorter urls, but I also want to be able to see
what it's about. Generic is good, but too generic isn't I think.

> 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

I agree, that it appears too long - I just don't know what I can leave
out without losing the meaning and specificity.

> 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/

I may be missing the point - he is saying that Google does not
penalize dashes, not even when there are many, and I think his last
point has more to do with long domain names than with long urls?

From what I read there, the above url is perfect for SEO...

> So far so good, here is my contribution:
>
> http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html

Not much I can say about that one. Nice page, clever use of the words
html and structure, without appearing spammy. Good absence of language
flags in the top right ;-)

The only thing I would advise, is to add at least one more keyword:
optimization with a z. Perhaps also optimise and optimize. Not sure if
that would become spammy though, but I'd certainly make sure that if
you use one of those words with an s, to also include it spelled with
a z. (optimization comes up 279,000,000 times in Google, while
optimisation 'only' gets 47,800,000 results)

And I would split internetpresentation into two words :-)

(I take it you're still gonna add the instructions that are already in
the Dutch version and partly in the German version?)

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

Now playing: Greenslade - What Are You Doin' To Me

Els schreef:
> tonnie wrote:
>> Els schreef:
>>> ** 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

>> Hi Els,
>>
>> Nice clean page and well structured.
>>
>> A few points i noticed:
>>
>> - no description
>> - no keywords
>
> Believe it or not - I tend to forget those...

I do believe you

>> - numbers for links
>
> They are there for the visitor to easily see that each page is part of
> a 3-page set. Further down in the content the same links are spelled
> out with words. Is it bad that there are number links on the page at
> all?

No, imo it just would be better to use words.

>> - no headers
>
> You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
> headers in?

I agree that there is not mucht text, but still, you could consider to
change this:

The problem they experience, is demonstrated here:

Into:

<h3>The problem IE users experience with hovering on an image border:</h3>


>> - make your title as short as possible
>> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus &copy;2005
>> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer
>
> I know there is no need, but I like it that way. Is it bad for SEO or
> any other reason?

The more text in a title, the weaker its components get.

>
>> - to me there are, i can see you use johns technique of 'no menu'
>> on the page, not enough further options.
>
> No, I don't know of John's 'no menu' technique.

Ah, i see. Just jumped into conclusions then as i did read somewhere
Johne helped you out to optimise this one.

> The sole reason for the plain page, is that they are example pages,
> and if I add a menu with styling, those styles will interfere with
> the styles of the examples. This is not true for all examples btw,
> but I want to keep the collection rather uniform.

Oke, i am fine with that.

> The horizontal navigation at the top only holds 'home' and 'css',
> because I don't think my portfolio or my contact details are part of
> CSS examples. I feel it's a separate part of the site, and I offer a
> home link for anyone who wants to go back to the rest of the site.
>
>> all more or less minor points, but this one isn't:
>>
>> - to long dokument name
>
> I've been struggling with that one. The last word is needed to
> differentiate between the 3 pages. So you suggest I make it shorter,
> like for instance "border-styles" ? That doesn't indicate IE, nor
> hover. I'm all for shorter urls, but I also want to be able to see
> what it's about. Generic is good, but too generic isn't I think.
>
>> 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
>
> I agree, that it appears too long - I just don't know what I can leave
> out without losing the meaning and specificity.
>
>> ie-image-border-styles-on-hover-solution.php

Suggestion:

ie-image-border.php

or

image-border-ie.php

Try to get the strongest words in it.

For those who did inspect my pages: i not always practice what i preach.

>> 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/
>
> I may be missing the point - he is saying that Google does not
> penalize dashes, not even when there are many, and I think his last
> point has more to do with long domain names than with long urls?
>
> From what I read there, the above url is perfect for SEO...

Yes, but a dokument name is also part of a URl isn't it?

>> So far so good, here is my contribution:
>>
>> http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/html-structure.html
>
> Not much I can say about that one. Nice page, clever use of the words
> html and structure, without appearing spammy. Good absence of language
> flags in the top right ;-)

That was years ago and discussed in niwo. That discussions did make an
impression then, didn't they.

> The only thing I would advise, is to add at least one more keyword:
> optimization with a z. Perhaps also optimise and optimize. Not sure if
> that would become spammy though, but I'd certainly make sure that if
> you use one of those words with an s, to also include it spelled with
> a z. (optimization comes up 279,000,000 times in Google, while
> optimisation 'only' gets 47,800,000 results)

I know, still figuring out what would be best. Catching them all in a
few pages or writing more to promote them. Hm, in fact i know what to
do. But hey lazy ...

> And I would split internetpresentation into two words :-)

Good one. Changed it.

> (I take it you're still gonna add the instructions that are already in
> the Dutch version and partly in the German version?)

Yes, all of it has to be translated. But for the moment i am writing to
much in Dutch and having almost no time left to translate the rest.

App. 200 pages are still waiting to be translated into German and most
of them into English.



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

tonnie wrote:
> Els schreef:
>> tonnie wrote:
>>> Els schreef:

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

>>> - no headers
>>
>> You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
>> headers in?
>
> I agree that there is not mucht text, but still, you could consider to
> change this:
>
> The problem they experience, is demonstrated here:
>
> Into:
>
> <h3>The problem IE users experience with hovering on an image border:</h3>

I'll think about that one, cause it may be good for SEO, but I don't
find it as natural sounding as the sentence I had.

To add a header, and keep it natural, I'd perhaps do it like this:
<h3>Problem Demo</h3>
<p>The problem IE users experience .... </p>

That would be good for the visitor's overview of the page, but
wouldn't add any SEO effect afaics.

>>> - make your title as short as possible
>>> no need to use this @ Locus Optimus &copy;2005
>>> put it in the description or place it on the page in a footer
>>
>> I know there is no need, but I like it that way. Is it bad for SEO or
>> any other reason?
>
> The more text in a title, the weaker its components get.

This is where I'll sacrifice SEO :-)

>>> - to me there are, i can see you use johns technique of 'no menu'
>>> on the page, not enough further options.
>>
>> No, I don't know of John's 'no menu' technique.
>
> Ah, i see. Just jumped into conclusions then as i did read somewhere
> Johne helped you out to optimise this one.

That was this page:
http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery...lative-bug.php
But I only took some pointers from him wrt to the content and titles,
not the page set up or layout.

This one is also influenced by John btw, and does rather well:
http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery/ie7-hover-bug.php

Is no.1 for keywords 'new bug ie7', 'css rollover bug', 'ie7 rollover
bug' and no.6 for 'new bug IE'. (all without quotes)

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

[snip]

>> I agree, that it appears too long - I just don't know what I can leave
>> out without losing the meaning and specificity.
>>
>>> ie-image-border-styles-on-hover-solution.php
>
> Suggestion:
>
> ie-image-border.php
>
> or
>
> image-border-ie.php
>
> Try to get the strongest words in it.

Strong words indeed - but it takes away from people searching for
"hover not working on images in IE" or "mouseover styles not working
in IE". I agree, that if I had to restrict myself to 3 words, you
picked the right ones, but still.. I'm not sure if I think it's a good
idea to change it. :-)

> For those who did inspect my pages: i not always practice what i preach.

Same here! <g>

>>> 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/
>>
>> I may be missing the point - he is saying that Google does not
>> penalize dashes, not even when there are many, and I think his last
>> point has more to do with long domain names than with long urls?
>>
>> From what I read there, the above url is perfect for SEO...
>
> Yes, but a dokument name is also part of a URl isn't it?

Yup, but urls don't get spelled out as often as domainnames. And as he
also explains, with more words, you have more options of different
keyword searches ending up on your page. The thing is of course to not
have too few, nor too many. I know the name I chose is on the longish
end, I just hope it's not too long.

[http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/...tructure.html]

[language flags]
> That was years ago and discussed in niwo. That discussions did make an
> impression then, didn't they.

Surely did. It also helps that it gets repeated about every 3 months
:-)

[z vs s / US vs UK spelling]
> I know, still figuring out what would be best. Catching them all in a
> few pages or writing more to promote them. Hm, in fact i know what to
> do. But hey lazy ...

Go on, it won't take 10 minutes ;-)

>> (I take it you're still gonna add the instructions that are already in
>> the Dutch version and partly in the German version?)
>
> Yes, all of it has to be translated. But for the moment i am writing to
> much in Dutch and having almost no time left to translate the rest.

15 minutes a day. (advice that I preach, not currently practise, but I
know it works). Just take 15 minutes, and then stop. Don't get sucked
into doing 16 minutes. Just 15 a day.

> App. 200 pages are still waiting to be translated into German and most
> of them into English.

I have the reverse problem. Wrote everything and anything in English -
now I want to make a Dutch version. I used to have plans to translate
LocusMeus into both Dutch and Portuguese as well, but I've since given
up on that idea. Just too much work :-)

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

Now playing: Jethro Tull - No Lullaby

"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.

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">&quot;en&quot;</span>

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

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 ...

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/

tonnie wrote:
> Els schreef:
>> tonnie wrote:
>>> Els schreef:
>>>> tonnie wrote:
>>>>> Els schreef:
>>
>> [http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery...-on-hover.php]
>>
>>>>> - no headers
>>>> You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
>>>> headers in?
>>> I agree that there is not mucht text, but still, you could consider to
>>> change this:
>>>
>>> The problem they experience, is demonstrated here:
>>>
>>> Into:
>>>
>>> <h3>The problem IE users experience with hovering on an image border:</h3>
>>
>> I'll think about that one, cause it may be good for SEO, but I don't
>> find it as natural sounding as the sentence I had.
>
> Just mentioned it as an option to get more structure in the text and the
> propper weight to a few lines that do stand out imo.

I'll have another fresh look at my page, seeing if I find use for some
<h3> in there somewhere.

> It even makes it easier for a visitor, the text gets more accessible.
> Just think of it as a helping hand to some one that is 'scanning' the
> text to find the most important parts.

That would be the best motive for it, yes. It's just that when I first
wrote the page, I couldn't find a proper place for it. But then again,
I'm often tired when I write pages, as I seem to only find time for it
when I should really be sleeping. Note to self: re-read pages on an
early morning about a week after a 'nightly build' ;-)

>> To add a header, and keep it natural, I'd perhaps do it like this:
>> <h3>Problem Demo</h3>
>
> Why not make it <h3>IE Problem Demo</h3>
>
> After all it _is_ a problem in IE

Certainly is. And the word 'problem' isn't used enough (if at all?) on
those pages.

>> <p>The problem IE users experience .... </p>
>>
>> That would be good for the visitor's overview of the page, but
>> wouldn't add any SEO effect afaics.
>
> Just a minor one. One of your keywords is 'problem' together with 'IE'.

Is it? It will be now that you've mentioned it :-)

>> This is where I'll sacrifice SEO :-)
>
> Oke. On the BBQ with it.

Yummy! <g>
I think it'll go nicely with those frames we've been burning ritually
:-)

>> Is no.1 for keywords 'new bug ie7', 'css rollover bug', 'ie7 rollover
>> bug' and no.6 for 'new bug IE'. (all without quotes)
>
> Jepp seen it. Nice!

Thanks :-)

> [snip strong words - small versus large dokument name]
>
> I did mention his article just for those last lines. The long domain
> name he gives as an example. It might not be seen as spam now, but in
> his words i taste a little 'be cautious' and that sounds to me like it
> could well be in the future.
>
> A little paranoid i know. :-)

By the time my urls are considered too long for the Googlebot, I'd
hope that they pages have become obsolete :P

> Hihi, niwo is a group of old habbits.

Hobbits? ;-)

>> [z vs s / US vs UK spelling]
>>> I know, still figuring out what would be best. Catching them all in a
>>> few pages or writing more to promote them. Hm, in fact i know what to
>>> do. But hey lazy ...
>>
>> Go on, it won't take 10 minutes ;-)
>
> I know, just as everything else just takes 10 minutes.

Yup, but you must choose one thing only - therein lies the secret :-)

>>> Yes, all of it has to be translated. But for the moment i am writing to
>>> much in Dutch and having almost no time left to translate the rest.
>>
>> 15 minutes a day. (advice that I preach, not currently practise, but I
>> know it works). Just take 15 minutes, and then stop. Don't get sucked
>> into doing 16 minutes. Just 15 a day.
>
> I'll try i promise.

Good :-)

>>> App. 200 pages are still waiting to be translated into German and most
>>> of them into English.
>>
>> I have the reverse problem. Wrote everything and anything in English -
>> now I want to make a Dutch version. I used to have plans to translate
>> LocusMeus into both Dutch and Portuguese as well, but I've since given
>> up on that idea. Just too much work :-)
>
> Hey, it just takes 15 minutes. :-D

I knew it! (some things are sooo easy to predict <g>)

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

Now playing: Jon & Vangelis - The Friends Of Mr. Cairo

Els schreef:
> tonnie wrote:
>> Els schreef:
>>> tonnie wrote:
>>>> Els schreef:
>>>>> tonnie wrote:
>>>>>> Els schreef:
>>> [http://locusoptimus.com/css-trickery...-on-hover.php]
>>>
>>>>>> - no headers
>>>>> You mean h2, h3? The pages are very short - where would you have put
>>>>> headers in?
>>>> I agree that there is not mucht text, but still, you could consider to
>>>> change this:
>>>>
>>>> The problem they experience, is demonstrated here:
>>>>
>>>> Into:
>>>>
>>>> <h3>The problem IE users experience with hovering on an image border:</h3>
>>> I'll think about that one, cause it may be good for SEO, but I don't
>>> find it as natural sounding as the sentence I had.
>> Just mentioned it as an option to get more structure in the text and the
>> propper weight to a few lines that do stand out imo.
>
> I'll have another fresh look at my page, seeing if I find use for some
> <h3> in there somewhere.
>
>> It even makes it easier for a visitor, the text gets more accessible.
>> Just think of it as a helping hand to some one that is 'scanning' the
>> text to find the most important parts.
>
> That would be the best motive for it, yes. It's just that when I first
> wrote the page, I couldn't find a proper place for it. But then again,
> I'm often tired when I write pages, as I seem to only find time for it
> when I should really be sleeping. Note to self: re-read pages on an
> early morning about a week after a 'nightly build' ;-)

Jepp, do that, everything looks better with a nice cup of coffee in the
morning. Not to early that is.

>>> To add a header, and keep it natural, I'd perhaps do it like this:
>>> <h3>Problem Demo</h3>
>> Why not make it <h3>IE Problem Demo</h3>
>>
>> After all it _is_ a problem in IE
>
> Certainly is. And the word 'problem' isn't used enough (if at all?) on
> those pages.
>
>>> <p>The problem IE users experience .... </p>
>>>
>>> That would be good for the visitor's overview of the page, but
>>> wouldn't add any SEO effect afaics.
>> Just a minor one. One of your keywords is 'problem' together with 'IE'.
>
> Is it? It will be now that you've mentioned it :-)
>
>>> This is where I'll sacrifice SEO :-)
>> Oke. On the BBQ with it.
>
> Yummy! <g>

> I think it'll go nicely with those frames we've been burning ritually
> :-)

I still have that page of a nice frameset BBQ, we could throw in some
SEO-parts as well. :-D

Yepp still got it: http://vision2form.nl/Temp/niwo-frames-ritueel.html

For non Dutch you probably can't read it, but hey you'll get the point.

>>> Is no.1 for keywords 'new bug ie7', 'css rollover bug', 'ie7 rollover
>>> bug' and no.6 for 'new bug IE'. (all without quotes)
>> Jepp seen it. Nice!
>
> Thanks :-)
>
>> [snip strong words - small versus large dokument name]
>>
>> I did mention his article just for those last lines. The long domain
>> name he gives as an example. It might not be seen as spam now, but in
>> his words i taste a little 'be cautious' and that sounds to me like it
>> could well be in the future.
>>
>> A little paranoid i know. :-)
>
> By the time my urls are considered too long for the Googlebot, I'd
> hope that they pages have become obsolete :P
>
>> Hihi, niwo is a group of old habbits.
>
> Hobbits? ;-)

Jepp those to. *BG*

>>> [z vs s / US vs UK spelling]
>>>> I know, still figuring out what would be best. Catching them all in a
>>>> few pages or writing more to promote them. Hm, in fact i know what to
>>>> do. But hey lazy ...
>>> Go on, it won't take 10 minutes ;-)
>> I know, just as everything else just takes 10 minutes.
>
> Yup, but you must choose one thing only - therein lies the secret :-)

Thank you for sharing that with me. It is truly the truth. :-)

>>>> Yes, all of it has to be translated. But for the moment i am writing to
>>>> much in Dutch and having almost no time left to translate the rest.
>>> 15 minutes a day. (advice that I preach, not currently practise, but I
>>> know it works). Just take 15 minutes, and then stop. Don't get sucked
>>> into doing 16 minutes. Just 15 a day.
>> I'll try i promise.
>
> Good :-)
>
>>>> App. 200 pages are still waiting to be translated into German and most
>>>> of them into English.
>>> I have the reverse problem. Wrote everything and anything in English -
>>> now I want to make a Dutch version. I used to have plans to translate
>>> LocusMeus into both Dutch and Portuguese as well, but I've since given
>>> up on that idea. Just too much work :-)
>> Hey, it just takes 15 minutes. :-D
>
> I knew it! (some things are sooo easy to predict <g>)

Hm still have that glass bulb do you. LOL!

--
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:
> canadafred wrote:
>
> [me and my SEO]
> > She has come to us wanting to know how to achieve more keyphrase
> > dynamicability.
>
> Pardon?
>
> Let me state what I think I was doing here:
>
> John said I should be listed on your site as a SEO expert. I said I
> shouldn't since I'm not. I think I've written several messages, all
> stating the same thing, being that I do SEO for as much as it is
> naturally the result of writing good pages for visitors. Even debated
> the difference between a by-product and a coincidence.
> The conversation then went on with TJ suggesting we should all submit
> a page to talk about different SEO techniques, to which I submitted my
> page.
>
> I did not come here for advice, I got involved in an experiment. Two
> different things afaik. The reason I'm reading this ng at all, is to
> become aware of ideas I may not have considered before. Like for
> example the suggestion to use alt text on the image where I have
> alt="" now.

I can't seem to dig out the past thread where all this originates. I
was under the impression that you were not staisfied with performing
well with only one variation of keyowrds and you were open to
suggestions as to how to diversify your keyphrase presence in the
SERPs. Was it not you that hoped to rank better for variations of the
order of the keywords? Like I said, maybe I am confused. It is not
generally a good idea for me to stick my neck out and perform SEO
critiques. That was the intention of moving the thread to a new one. To
open up the code to SEO critique.

> > 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.
>
> No, it has to be visitor friendly from the start, and remain visitor
> friendly always. I prefer a couple of good links from people who think
> I wrote a good tutorial, than a higher SERP in Google while people
> have trouble seeing through the SEO on my page.

Just because a web page is well oprtimized doesn't make it a bad
visitor experience by proxy. This is what SEO is about. It is an
illusion of sorts whereas nothing appears to have changed yet
everything has changed.

> BTW - I'm not doing badly in the SERPS - why would I jeopardize that
> by trying to get even higher? I mean - even 'border image ie' gives me
> no. 9 out of 30,300,000 in Google.nl, and a 17th place out of
> 24,400,000 in Google.com. If I swap it around to 'image border ie',
> it's no. 3. No keyword stuffing, no disguised headers, not even an alt
> text, and using too long titles.

Hey, if that satisfies you, then that satisfies you.

> > 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.
>
> That balance is already there, unless "both" means you and T.J ;-)
> As said before, there's a couple of things I will change in that page
> as a result of the comments I got here, but it's nowhere in the
> direction of spammy or black hat.

.... both in this case means your web visitor as well as the search
engines ( emphasis on the trailing "s" in search engines )

> > 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.
>
> Who's 'they' in that sentence? Sorry, the grammar of it didn't parse
> with me very well. Assuming it is me, then sure, only I can determine
> what I find ethical to write on my site.

In SEO, only the search engines can judge your presentation.

> > To our eyes it may appear spammy or it may not appear to be spammy.
> > That really doesn't matter now does it?
>
> It certainly does, to me at least.
>
> > 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.
>
> True. For as far as I hadn't found it already.

I get this feeling that you are intentionally trying to limit your
capabilities.

> > 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.
>
> No, I will stay well clear of the edge. I will take some of the
> pointers into consideration though, as I obviously didn't explore all
> the options yet, even away from the edge.

I realize that you are not an SEO. If you were, you would already know
that "thinking out of the box" to derive a solution when faced with an
SEO weakness is mandatory. Risk taking at the expert level means the
difference between having a future in SEO or not. A bad risk will
destroy an SEO. Well beyond anything I could possibly say to you today
Els is the underlining reality that: in order to be the best in
anything in life one must push one's limits to the max. This is the
nature of competition. I think in SEO, that those that feel the highest
awards to difficult to reach and settle for just having a place in the
lead pack are but a breath away to being throned.

Looks at the number Els. #1 gets 13% of the keyphrase traffic, #2 gets
11%, #3 less etc. on it goes. You have 30,300,000 web pages behind your
position. How many of those do you think want the top place in the
race? The day that web design alone determines rankings is not here.

> > 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?
>
> I want to design accessible web sites, and optimize them for as much
> as looks, feels, sounds natural to myself and my visitors. I stated
> from the beginning: I'm not a SEO expert, nor do I advertise myself as
> such.

Happy SERPs.

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