Re: css vs html tables impact on seo

Articus wrote:

After reading articles that conflict with each other, is it better
for seo to use css to build tables or html to build tables? if css,
are there any issues with browsers not recognizing the code?

Tables are an html construct, css is used to style the contents and, unless
the contents are tabular, tables shouldn't be used for layout. Whatever the
method, it will have little impact on SEO.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> wrote

Articus wrote:

unless the contents are tabular, tables shouldn't be used for layout.

Peter...

I'd be glad if you'd explain a bit more why not.

Gordon

Gordon wrote:

"PeterMcC" <peter (AT) mccourt (DOT) org.uk> wrote in message
news:FJOOa.47869$xd5.2547069 (AT) stones (DOT) force9.net...
Articus wrote:


unless the contents are tabular, tables shouldn't be used for layout.

Peter...

I'd be glad if you'd explain a bit more why not.

Have a look at
http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
http://www.html-faq.com/csspositioning/?csslayout
http://glish.com/css/

In addition to explaining why tables shouldn't be used for layout, they'll
give you a deeper understanding of the relationship between html and css.

HTH
--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

PeterMcC wrote:

Articus wrote:

After reading articles that conflict with each other, is it better
for seo to use css to build tables or html to build tables? if css,
are there any issues with browsers not recognizing the code?

Tables are an html construct, css is used to style the contents and, unless
the contents are tabular, tables shouldn't be used for layout.

Totally agree.

Whatever the method, it will have little impact on SEO.

Are you sure about this.

Table layouts tend to have far more html content w.r.t. bloat of tag
properties (tr, td, alignment, width, etc...), use of single pixel gif,
repeating font tags (because they only apply to single table cells), and
in general an overall increase in page size over similar CSS layouts.

Some SEO/usability books that I have come accross suggest that search
engines typically index the 1st 2-3K of a page - if that 2-3K portion is
comprised of more "layout fluff" than the "real meat" (a.k.a your
keywords) then I can't see that using tables would be equally beneficial
in practise.

Of course this all depends heavily on the actual site - but most
commercial sites that use table layouts have lots of "fluff".

--Nikolaos

Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote:

PeterMcC wrote:
Articus wrote:

After reading articles that conflict with each other, is it better
for seo to use css to build tables or html to build tables? if css,
are there any issues with browsers not recognizing the code?

Tables are an html construct, css is used to style the contents and,
unless the contents are tabular, tables shouldn't be used for layout.

Totally agree.


Whatever the method, it will have little impact on SEO.

Are you sure about this.

You're right to raise the issue of bloat - IFAIK the SEs love a nice clean
html file with a minimum of structure and the rest made up of content. I
mentioned that the choice would have "little impact" - and I'd still make
that case since there are bigger issues (by far) than tables/css as regards
SEO. However, once everything else is sorted, it's well worth reducing the
amount of information in the html file that doesn't contribute to the page
content - shifting js into external files is another useful way of reducing
the size of the file.

Table layouts tend to have far more html content w.r.t. bloat of tag
properties (tr, td, alignment, width, etc...), use of single pixel
gif, repeating font tags (because they only apply to single table
cells), and in general an overall increase in page size over similar
CSS layouts.

Some SEO/usability books that I have come accross suggest that search
engines typically index the 1st 2-3K of a page - if that 2-3K portion
is comprised of more "layout fluff" than the "real meat" (a.k.a your
keywords) then I can't see that using tables would be equally
beneficial in practise.

Of course this all depends heavily on the actual site - but most
commercial sites that use table layouts have lots of "fluff".

And we could also consider the tables/accessibility issue but perhaps that's
another day

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.