![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
| A question for the experts! If I create my site using layers so it reads absolutely logically in the Lynx browser - will this help with SEO optimisation? As it stands it's all over the place in Lynx. (www.paris-tours.info) I also have a list of drop down dates - will these get indexed as I really don't want them to unless I can stick a key word or phrase in front - but then would this be considered spamming? Other than that thanks for the ongoing reading - I'm struggling since the guy who did my previous seo on other sites unfortunately fell off his perch somewhat prematurely leaving me to get on with this one. Cheers Grant |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
A question for the experts! If I create my site using layers so it reads absolutely logically in the Lynx browser - will this help with SEO optimisation? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Your current home page page needs to drop all those meta tags and move the content higher up - at the moment it seems to look like a long |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Buzby wrote: A question for the experts! If I create my site using layers so it reads absolutely logically in the Lynx browser - will this help with SEO optimisation? Not neccesarily - robots probably have a limited opinion on how a page looks, the only thing about Lynx is that it that it probably shows you a view similar to an SE robot in terms of text content, title and headers - the most important on-page elements. The semantics matter little. Your current home page page needs to drop all those meta tags and move the content higher up - at the moment it seems to look like a long drop down list of dates. The ALT text is a bit long for your images too. The table driven design is also a bit verbose. A lot of the anchor text is unfocussed - why are thses PB, VVG etc terms included, will people search on these? Morning tours might better be morning tours in Paris or something that works well without sounding too spammy. I know you do this on inside pages but normally you home page has most PR to distribute so should be more focussed. Also check on Wordtracker/Overture to see what people search on and check the terms in Google to analyze the competition for those terms. Apart from that the site works well for me, easy to navigate and clear. It may possibly be worthwhile rewriting your URLs to replace the '?' query string separator with '/' slashes. They will get indexed but this may make the resources look more specific. I would be tempted to expand the site to be a resource for Paris with pages about the River Seine, Versaille, Monet's Garden etc so that you can have a lot of themed internal linking and hopefully attract IBLs from other sites. You may need a copywriter and photographer for this - or just a guidebook or a day with Wikipedia :-). |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
I still wonder at this: has a bot really a problem with finding content in an arbitrary page? Eg: does the content have to start at line 7, and does the menu have to be moved down to the bottom, so it's less "significant"? |
#7
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
John Bokma wrote: I still wonder at this: has a bot really a problem with finding content in an arbitrary page? Eg: does the content have to start at line 7, and does the menu have to be moved down to the bottom, so it's less "significant"? It is true that Google, for one, is indexing a lot more of pages now - I've found pages 500K long that are indexed but I figure that pages that have less cruft on them will still be indexed quicker and more easily - |
|
it may not make a difference but why take the risk? |
|
Bit like Luigi's insistence on SSL all his pages, it is only going to make a robot's job more difficult. |
|
Do the easy stuff, remove the hurdles, then concentrate on the rest. Just a PoV. |
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
Because it means people start to design pages for bots, not for humans. Ok, some understand a bit CSS, but Google tells us to design for humans. |
#9
| |||
| |||
|
|
Because it means people start to design pages for bots, not for humans. Ok, some understand a bit CSS, but Google tells us to design for humans. I think we basically agree on this. The site in question looked pretty easy to use so I didn't want to make a big issue about that. The problem is that some sites are designed neither for humans, google, msn search or even chimps. A lot of people I see who are having problems seem to have one thing in common - very poorly structured pages - I'm not saying a page needs to validate but if there is very little on-page information about the theme of the site it is going to be hard for a bot to do its work. This wasn't the case for the Paris Tours site but I would still remove unneccesary tags. I will set up an experiment to see which type of page ranks best though. Will let you know details later. |
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
John Bokma wrote: Because it means people start to design pages for bots, not for humans. Ok, some understand a bit CSS, but Google tells us to design for humans. I think we basically agree on this. The site in question looked pretty easy to use so I didn't want to make a big issue about that. The problem is that some sites are designed neither for humans, google, msn search or even chimps. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |