Re: Order of meta tags matter?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?

My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.


--
Top 10 election freebies
http://www.top10freebies.co.uk/top-1...n-freebies.htm

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just

dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?

Thank you for your reply.
Don


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?

Does it have any alt text? Can it have alt text? Is it better than an
animtated gif? Does it take longer to load?

Give me 10 reasons why you should have an applet rather than an image.


I thin kI might have emailed you via the site contacts about a link
I've made to you.


--
Top 10 election freebies
http://www.top10freebies.co.uk/top-1...n-freebies.htm

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?

I suppose strictly speaking you could have each pic separately, link
them to the top of the page, and have keywords in the alt text of each
picture, so you lose the opportunity for that. But that's strictly
speaking, I doubt the search results are clogged with classical duos
in your area.

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade appl

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:02:49 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?


Does it have any alt text? Can it have alt text? Is it better than an
animtated gif? Does it take longer to load?

Give me 10 reasons why you should have an applet rather than an image.


I thin kI might have emailed you via the site contacts about a link
I've made to you.
I didn't receive any email from you. But, thank you for the link. I'm

beginning to think that's probably the biggest reason why Arioso Duo isn't
being index by google. I do plan to trim down the meta tags, and maybe that
will help some also.

Thanks,
Don


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:02:49 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?


Does it have any alt text? Can it have alt text? Is it better than an
animtated gif? Does it take longer to load?

Give me 10 reasons why you should have an applet rather than an image.


I thin kI might have emailed you via the site contacts about a link
I've made to you.
What does "imo" mean?

Thanks,
Don


http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:23:50 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?

I suppose strictly speaking you could have each pic separately, link
them to the top of the page, and have keywords in the alt text of each
picture, so you lose the opportunity for that. But that's strictly
speaking, I doubt the search results are clogged with classical duos
in your area.

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
Is the alt text something that google requires for the site to be included
in search results?

alt text in images is indexed in image links. It's taken some notice
of. It counts towards the ranking of your page. I'm saying you don't
need to worry unduly as you don't have too much competition to beat.
I dunno why Mogga is banging on.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:23:04 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:02:49 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?


Does it have any alt text? Can it have alt text? Is it better than an
animtated gif? Does it take longer to load?

Give me 10 reasons why you should have an applet rather than an image.


I thin kI might have emailed you via the site contacts about a link
I've made to you.
What does "imo" mean?

Thanks,
Don

In My Opinion. Also as IMHO (honest).

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
--

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:35:40 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:23:50 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:32:53 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:23:29 +0100, mogga <di (AT) NOSPAMPLEASEmogga (DOT) com> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:48:27 -0700, Don <no (AT) adr (DOT) com> wrote:


Besides having unnecessary meta tags, can you think of anything else I might
do to improve searchablity. Do you think the rotating picture applet is
really a problem?


My reply further up you might have missed


I would also ditch that horrible photo rotator. Copyfade applets are
unneccessay imo.
Put a static image. Get some alt text on it.

Do you have any links in?
Google likes links in.
Thanks for your reply Mogga. When you say "horrible", is it that you just
dislike it, or is there a technical reason why it would be better not to use
it?

I suppose strictly speaking you could have each pic separately, link
them to the top of the page, and have keywords in the alt text of each
picture, so you lose the opportunity for that. But that's strictly
speaking, I doubt the search results are clogged with classical duos
in your area.

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
Is the alt text something that google requires for the site to be included
in search results?

alt text in images is indexed in image links. It's taken some notice
of. It counts towards the ranking of your page. I'm saying you don't
need to worry unduly as you don't have too much competition to beat.
I dunno why Mogga is banging on.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
seo that loves a cuddle...
Thanks BB

http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----