<b> verses <srtong> for SEO

Hello all
I am hoping some of you SEO experts will help me out on one of the
websites that I maintain.
I am rather new to SEO, but do get the idea as to what to do, it's
just that I am targeting a huge and already established market.

I originally used <strong></strong> so the site will be 508 compliant,
but when I ran it through an online spider, it said that none of my
keywords are in bold ..... aaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong>
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

What I have done atm is to add an anchor link to every product from
the homepage as well as having a nav bar to go to the main sections.

What doesn't help as well is that the site was fully stocked, and due
to a few good days selling stock, the pages are now somewhat bare. (I
keep pushing them to give me more products)

Some pages I had to delete due to no stock on them and I have lost the
PR that was set for that page(s) ....... on the other hand I have also
had to add extra pages, and they do not yet have PR.

Could someone please look at the site and give me some good
recommendations as to improving it.
(maybe take off all the links on the bottom of the homepage - although
the owner of the site loves the idea)

Thank you deeply for any help.

The site is houstoncrafts dot com

Kindest Regards
Paul Burke

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke
<webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

Hello all
I am hoping some of you SEO experts will help me out on one of the
websites that I maintain.
I am rather new to SEO, but do get the idea as to what to do, it's
just that I am targeting a huge and already established market.

I originally used <strong></strong> so the site will be 508 compliant,
but when I ran it through an online spider, it said that none of my
keywords are in bold ..... aaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

Time, perhaps, to think about CSS CSS for font properties and
attributes.

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

I still don't think it matters about that.

What I have done atm is to add an anchor link to every product from
the homepage as well as having a nav bar to go to the main sections.

What doesn't help as well is that the site was fully stocked, and due
to a few good days selling stock, the pages are now somewhat bare. (I
keep pushing them to give me more products)

Some pages I had to delete due to no stock on them and I have lost the
PR that was set for that page(s) ....... on the other hand I have also
had to add extra pages, and they do not yet have PR.

Perhaps you should simply have amended the pages to advise that there
was no current stock of that item.

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:41:47 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke
webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

snip

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

Time, perhaps, to think about CSS CSS for font properties and
attributes.
I do use CSS for both.

I had my <strong> as bold (in css), but as far as the spider tool
goes, there were no keywords that were in bold.
By changing it to <b>keyword<b> picked up the bold text. No suprise.

I want the site to be 508 compliant but at the same time, to be high
up on the engines. It doesn't help that it is a large market that I am
fighting.

I don't know css well enough to make the <b> tag to be "strong" so
both search engines and text readers will read properly. (without the
non-css option of doing <strong><b>keyword</b></strong>)

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

I still don't think it matters about that.
I ruddy hope not. One site is over 4100 pages and really don't want to

go down that path. My jaw dropped when I read that it *did* matter.
Time will tell.

What I have done atm is to add an anchor link to every product from
the homepage as well as having a nav bar to go to the main sections.

What doesn't help as well is that the site was fully stocked, and due
to a few good days selling stock, the pages are now somewhat bare. (I
keep pushing them to give me more products)

Some pages I had to delete due to no stock on them and I have lost the
PR that was set for that page(s) ....... on the other hand I have also
had to add extra pages, and they do not yet have PR.

Perhaps you should simply have amended the pages to advise that there
was no current stock of that item.
I did do that for a few pages, but not all.

If and when g**gle does its next PR, then I am hoping it will pick up
the new pages.
My other site is over 3 months old and still hasn't got a PR and I
have PR4 sites linking to me too. Very frustrating.

BB

Thank you for your help

plh
Paul Burke

Paul Burke wrote:

I do use CSS for both.
I had my <strong> as bold (in css), but as far as the spider tool
goes, there were no keywords that were in bold.
By changing it to <b>keyword<b> picked up the bold text. No suprise.

Which engines exactly are you talking about?

I use <strong> and <em> on all my sites and I don't have any problems
to rank OK in Google, A9, Yahoo and others. (What matters in any case
is not so much on-page optimization, but off-page optimization.)

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

"Paul Burke" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote

Hello all
I am hoping some of you SEO experts will help me out on one of the
websites that I maintain.
I am rather new to SEO, but do get the idea as to what to do, it's
just that I am targeting a huge and already established market.

I originally used <strong></strong> so the site will be 508 compliant,
but when I ran it through an online spider, it said that none of my
keywords are in bold ..... aaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh

Nice article about <strong> verses <b> here.

http://www.ranking.ws/index.php/arti...-your-keywords

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:47:50 -0600, Paul Burke
<webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:41:47 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke
webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

snip

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

Time, perhaps, to think about CSS CSS for font properties and
attributes.
I do use CSS for both.
I had my <strong> as bold (in css), but as far as the spider tool
goes, there were no keywords that were in bold.
By changing it to <b>keyword<b> picked up the bold text. No suprise.

Remember that <b> & <strong> may look alike in the browser [both
bolding of text] but that the two are different as in one is use for a
form of emphasis or "stressing" a thought/word, as in wanting to add
tone inflection, so "logical" [<strong>] and the other [<b>] is
"physical" as you just want to bring the eye to it but not necessarily
with emphasis [as in terms of tone of voice changing if read out
loud].

Same goes ofor <em> and <i> - <em> is logical and <i> is physical.

I want the site to be 508 compliant but at the same time, to be high
up on the engines. It doesn't help that it is a large market that I am
fighting.

I don't know css well enough to make the <b> tag to be "strong" so
both search engines and text readers will read properly. (without the
non-css option of doing <strong><b>keyword</b></strong>)

Do the keywords deserve to be emphasized when the content is read out
loud? Or are you simply, when those keywords are shared, trying to
bring the eye to them?

Don't worry so much about if hearing "Google will take notice if you
use <strong> on certain words ..." to the point that you are going
through your content, say about selling red, white, and blue widgets,
and sticking <strong></strong> around each instance that those words
appear. Can risk the page looking "junky" to people's eyes or, if
striving for 508 compliance, having people using text-to-speech
readers having to hear a roller-coaster sharing of your contents when
hitting passages like: "<strong>Company</strong> is an
<strong>international supplier</strong> of <strong>red, white, and
blue widgets</strong>. Seeking <strong>quality red widgets</strong>?
<strong>Company</strong> only carries the finest <strong>ruby red
widgets</strong> ...

Use as needed and that will work in your text's favor more so than
trying to dilute the possible benefit.

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

I still don't think it matters about that.
I ruddy hope not. One site is over 4100 pages and really don't want to
go down that path. My jaw dropped when I read that it *did* matter.
Time will tell.

Hyphens are regarded as the better out of the 3 BUT, and you knew that
was coming, changing it may not have zip up 20 to 30 slots just
because you slipped in hyphens. If a page is doing well without the
hyphens then don't worry about the hyphens. None of my domain names
have hyphens - I do ok without the hyphens [#2, #5, #8, etc.]

Same goes goes, in my opinion, for image file names. Unlinked file
names - are you wanting to rank higher in the Image Search for those?
If not, don't worry about it.

Some of the tips you read about are "small boost" thoughts. However a
page can rank well that doesn't share one instance of <strong> or <b>
in the text or having hyphens in their file names.

What I have done atm is to add an anchor link to every product from
the homepage as well as having a nav bar to go to the main sections.

What doesn't help as well is that the site was fully stocked, and due
to a few good days selling stock, the pages are now somewhat bare. (I
keep pushing them to give me more products)

Some pages I had to delete due to no stock on them and I have lost the
PR that was set for that page(s) ....... on the other hand I have also
had to add extra pages, and they do not yet have PR.

Perhaps you should simply have amended the pages to advise that there
was no current stock of that item.
I did do that for a few pages, but not all.
If and when g**gle does its next PR, then I am hoping it will pick up
the new pages.
My other site is over 3 months old and still hasn't got a PR and I
have PR4 sites linking to me too. Very frustrating.

Newer sites have been risking being felt to be backburnered or
"sandboxed" on Google. Theories abound as to what may trigger it on
some newer sites while others seem unaffected by the "syndrome". If a
site is 'sandboxed' then it can be around 90 days of a wait.

Last PR update on the toolbar was in mid-late October ... If Google
rumor is true that they are going to share a toolbar update every 3 to
4 months, then the next one may not be until around January sometime.
PR display on the toolbar is outdated within a few days after it is
updated as some people have already dove into their site to start
doing some tweaking or getting more backlinks by that time.

Use the toolbar as a guage or a "tool" - but not one that will likely
ever be up-to-date in info as, when you think about it, it never was.
I imagine in the next update you will be given a little display of
green for your site and its pages.

Carol

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:47:50 -0600, Paul Burke
<webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:41:47 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke
webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

snip

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

Time, perhaps, to think about CSS CSS for font properties and
attributes.
I do use CSS for both.
I had my <strong> as bold (in css), but as far as the spider tool
goes, there were no keywords that were in bold.
By changing it to <b>keyword<b> picked up the bold text. No suprise.

I want the site to be 508 compliant but at the same time, to be high
up on the engines. It doesn't help that it is a large market that I am
fighting.

I don't know css well enough to make the <b> tag to be "strong" so
both search engines and text readers will read properly. (without the
non-css option of doing <strong><b>keyword</b></strong>)

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

A recent study showed that there seems to be a slight boost in ranking
in Yahoo if keywords were used in file names but they were seemingly
penalised a teeny bit by Google. So six of one etc.

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us>
wrote:

Hello all
I am hoping some of you SEO experts will help me out on one of the
websites that I maintain.
I am rather new to SEO, but do get the idea as to what to do, it's
just that I am targeting a huge and already established market.

I'm not a SEO expert but I am rather familiar with HTML.

I originally used <strong></strong> so the site will be 508 compliant,
but when I ran it through an online spider, it said that none of my
keywords are in bold ..... aaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh

So, now I have turned them all into <bold></bold> again.

I thought about <strong><b>keyword</b></strong
but this looks unprofessional if someone looks at the code and also
bloats the code.

Here's the scoop on these two - and on <em> and <i>.

<strong> and <em> are used to mean the word or words are emphasized a bit
(<em>) or strongly (<strong>). UAs render these, often, as italics and
bolfface, but they really can do anything with them to visually emphasize
the word. A speech reader will emphasize these words as you'd expect.

<b> and <i> refer to intentional use of bold and italics. Now if it's
purely decorative, you should use CSS instead, but if the use is somewhat
semantic, and no other markup is appropriate, we use these. So a
mathematical variable is often in italics, but there's the <var> element
so that's what we should use. We italicize the name of a ship, but there's
no HTML to do that specifically, so <i>USS Minnow</i> is correct. Though I
report this second-hand, not knowing much about the math, in vector
equations boldface is used to give information about some things, so <b>
would be appropriate there.

So trechnically the choice of using <b>, <strong> or CSS {font-weight:
bold;} depends on why you're bolding the text - emphasis, non-decorative
but otherwise not covered by HTML markup, or decoration, respectively.

As to whether one or the other is better for SEO - if a spider is not
noting words in <strong> markup, that's a fault in the spider, in my
opinion. I'd be inclined to go with correct markup and compensate by using
strategic copy to push the keywords I'm intending for the page.

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:37:24 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk>
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:47:50 -0600, Paul Burke
webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:41:47 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:42:33 -0600, Paul Burke
webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote:

snip

snip

I also have the "problem" of underscores on some of my html files /
anchor links / jpgs etc. I didn't think that it mattered if you had
files like.
my_file_name.html or
myfilename.html or
my-file-name.html

A recent study showed that there seems to be a slight boost in ranking
in Yahoo if keywords were used in file names but they were seemingly
penalised a teeny bit by Google. So six of one etc.

You just can't win at this game. Thank you for that info.

BB

plh
Paul

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:45:13 -0000, "T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote:

"Paul Burke" <webmaster (AT) firstpeople (DOT) us> wrote in message
news:bl8gr09ivbh3dapt7kebe27rrn37updc50 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
Hello all
I am hoping some of you SEO experts will help me out on one of the
websites that I maintain.
I am rather new to SEO, but do get the idea as to what to do, it's
just that I am targeting a huge and already established market.

I originally used <strong></strong> so the site will be 508 compliant,
but when I ran it through an online spider, it said that none of my
keywords are in bold ..... aaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh



Nice article about <strong> verses <b> here.

http://www.ranking.ws/index.php/arti...-your-keywords

Thank you for that. Interesting reading.
plh
Paul