search criteria

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote

"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4794b4d3$0$22588$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com...
"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:fn2as8$fp6$01$1 (AT) news (DOT) t-online.com...
"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2BE2B3A5AF9castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

To the OP.
Please don't top post.

Then I recommend to fix that first. A sitemap is no magic device.

Like your site? Not very much text. IMO it is bad to have a site that is
all flash with nothing index able, not very good SEO. I would be more
worried about your hidden text also. If your site can't be read well by
a search engine then use other techniques besides flash. If a site has
to use techniques that are against the guidelines to add content then
one should rethink the style of site.






Stacey,

Was that the dig about Flash sites is in reference to my 'new site coming
soon' page?

Flash sites are normally bad to use for SEO.

As far as invisible text, there isn't any on my site.

"DigitalRainmakers is a Florida web design and search engine marketing
consultancy with over nine years experience. "

That was hidden
http://209.85.135.104/search?sourcei...nmakers.com%2F
according to that cache.

In terms of SEO though you are right - pure flash + invis text = definite
no no. The
new version of the site I'm working on in between clients is leaning more
towards
pure (or mostly pure) CSS with minimal flash.

Yes, minimal flash is best. Better to have none at all really. But if you
have to have it less is best.

Stacey
--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/

Stacey,

The text is not hidden. It is entirely visible on the page. Light gray text
on the dark
background. It has never been hidden. It is enclosed by a <div id="foot">
tag and
the foot class consists of the following:

#foot { width: 560px ; position: absolute ; left: 50% ; bottom: 10 ;
margin-left: -280px ; text-align: center ; font-size: 11px }

It's all right there in the source code, and the coming soon page has been
up for
quite awhile. If you look at the actual site itself, you'll see what I mean.
I am guessing
that Google's cache does not like my div id for whatever reason and is not
including
it in the cached version (you can view source on the cached version and see
that the
source code is identical to the current site).

--
Best,

Cynthia Turcotte
Web Designer & SEO Consultant
DigitalRainmakers
http://www.digitalrainmakers.com

"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote

"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:fn2enm$vef$00$1 (AT) news (DOT) t-online.com...
snip

"DigitalRainmakers is a Florida web design and search engine marketing
consultancy with over nine years experience. "

That was hidden
http://209.85.135.104/search?sourcei...nmakers.com%2F
according to that cache.
snip

Stacey,

The text is not hidden. It is entirely visible on the page. Light gray
text on the dark
background. It has never been hidden. It is enclosed by a <div id="foot"
tag and
the foot class consists of the following:

#foot { width: 560px ; position: absolute ; left: 50% ; bottom: 10 ;
margin-left: -280px ; text-align: center ; font-size: 11px }

It's all right there in the source code, and the coming soon page has been
up for
quite awhile. If you look at the actual site itself, you'll see what I
mean. I am guessing
that Google's cache does not like my div id for whatever reason and is not
including
it in the cached version (you can view source on the cached version and
see that the
source code is identical to the current site).

It has it, it just doesn't show it as Google is reading it as hidden. If you
take a look at this:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...8DE238&strip=1
If you see it has the text if you mouse over or view the source of the first
cache I showed you and this one. So maybe it will get fixed on the next go,
but Google is reading it as the same as the BG according to the cache.

Stacey

--
Jezsta Web Productions
SEO Tips - Website Design - Marketing
http://jezsta.com/

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote
g. DO make proper use of bold text,

as in: use the strong and em elements. Avoid using b and i elements.

For Google at least, that no longer matters; they are now treated
identically.

No doubt about it. But some of the advice was more clean HTML and use CSS
related.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

On 21 Jan 2008 04:17:08 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote:

The b and i elements are deprecated anyway

Depending on what you're use, yes. But people who know that don't need
advice on CSS, usage of h1 etc. elements anyway.

IMHO a sitemap is just a good idea.

Depends a lot on your site structure (assuming you mean the xml file).

Will it make or break your SEO efforts? No, but it's still good
practice. Particularly
if your site is not easily indexable due to extensive use of Flash,
etc...

Then I recommend to fix that first. A sitemap is no magic device.

I'd fix it AND use an html and an xml sitemap. Cover all the bases -
why not?

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:40:07 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2BE2B3A5AF9castleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote:
snip

To the OP.
Please don't top post.

IMHO a sitemap is just a good idea.

Depends a lot on your site structure (assuming you mean the xml file).

Hmm, sometimes you can get more pages indexed without a sitemap.

Will it make or break your SEO efforts? No, but it's still good
practice. Particularly
if your site is not easily indexable due to extensive use of Flash,
etc...

Then I recommend to fix that first. A sitemap is no magic device.

Like your site? Not very much text. IMO it is bad to have a site that is all
flash with nothing index able, not very good SEO. I would be more worried
about your hidden text also. If your site can't be read well by a search
engine then use other techniques besides flash. If a site has to use
techniques that are against the guidelines to add content then one should
rethink the style of site.

What's she using?

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:28:08 +0100, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote:

"Cynthia Turcotte" <cynthia (AT) digitalrainmakers (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4794c2e5$0$22623$4c368faf (AT) roadrunner (DOT) com...
"Jezsta Web Productions" <use-our-email-form (AT) jezsta (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:fn2enm$vef$00$1 (AT) news (DOT) t-online.com...
snip

"DigitalRainmakers is a Florida web design and search engine marketing
consultancy with over nine years experience. "

That was hidden
http://209.85.135.104/search?sourcei...nmakers.com%2F
according to that cache.
snip


Stacey,

The text is not hidden. It is entirely visible on the page. Light gray
text on the dark
background. It has never been hidden. It is enclosed by a <div id="foot"
tag and
the foot class consists of the following:

#foot { width: 560px ; position: absolute ; left: 50% ; bottom: 10 ;
margin-left: -280px ; text-align: center ; font-size: 11px }

It's all right there in the source code, and the coming soon page has been
up for
quite awhile. If you look at the actual site itself, you'll see what I
mean. I am guessing
that Google's cache does not like my div id for whatever reason and is not
including
it in the cached version (you can view source on the cached version and
see that the
source code is identical to the current site).

It has it, it just doesn't show it as Google is reading it as hidden. If you
take a look at this:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache...8DE238&strip=1
If you see it has the text if you mouse over or view the source of the first
cache I showed you and this one. So maybe it will get fixed on the next go,
but Google is reading it as the same as the BG according to the cache.

Stacey

Boys - are we getting the popcorn ready and pulling our chairs closer?
This is shaping up good...

:-) :-) :-)

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/

Like your site? Not very much text. IMO it is bad to have a site that
is all flash with nothing index able, not very good SEO. I would be
more worried about your hidden text also. If your site can't be read
well by a search engine then use other techniques besides flash. If a
site has to use techniques that are against the guidelines to add
content then one should rethink the style of site.

Eccch!

It also plays 'music' without any choice by the visitor.
That's a killer - as well as slowing page loading, even with broadband.
I didn'y know anyone was still doing that. So 1999!
Is it a midi file ;o)

What was your job again?
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus