Stage three of bad coding

On 16 Dec 2006 18:22:31 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

If you support XHTML, remove it ;-)

What's wrong with XHTML ?
One of my sites is XHTML and works in all browsers tested as well as
very good in the SERPS ?

Other site is 4.01 trans. Again, okay in all browsers tested and good
in SERPS.

plh
Paul

--
Handmade jewelry, Texas :
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/beaded/bracelet-605.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-108.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/pearl/necklace-119.html

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

John Bokma schreef:

John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

). It's how the HTML (or worse: XHTML, or even worse: non validating
XHTML) that's the issue.

Aargh, fantastic clear written sentence :-D

Yepp, its fast, clear and meteen te begrijpen.



--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

On 16 Dec 2006 18:26:05 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

tonnie <t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl> wrote:

Havent seen one yet that can beat a static html page.

Technically a CMS can generate a page that appears to be static to the
outside world. Most people here know that by now, I just wanted to add
that a CMS being dynamic is a non-issue (which I am aware you know ;-) ).
It's how the HTML (or worse: XHTML, or even worse: non validating XHTML)
that's the issue.

One thing that might be perceived as an issue is that the HTML is
generated automatically, and reads less easy compared to hand generated
HTML. This might make it look harder to SEO.

And it's also more work because it's easier: one change to a template, and
you have just modified thousands of pages. But you have to check some of
them in order to see if they still validate, if the optimization is
everywhere what you intended, etc.

The last two I've come across quite simply do not allow for
optimisation of the code. H tags around things like "Click here" and
you can't get rid of it or turn it into font tags or span styles.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On 16 Dec 2006 19:55:41 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

). It's how the HTML (or worse: XHTML, or even worse: non validating
XHTML) that's the issue.

Aargh, fantastic clear written sentence :-D

Whe is it you're abandoning Usenet?

BB :-)
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:33:14 +0100, tonnie <t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl>
wrote:

John Bokma schreef:
John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

). It's how the HTML (or worse: XHTML, or even worse: non validating
XHTML) that's the issue.

Aargh, fantastic clear written sentence :-D

Yepp, its fast, clear and meteen te begrijpen.

Le mote juste!

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:42:10 +0100, "Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
I think we're solidly into stage three of sites that are so badly
built they're impossible to optimise. Stage one was sites built in
frames, although mostly there was at least something that could be
done with them. Stage two was Flash, and as we all know the only thing
to do with an all-Flash site is build another one in html. Now I'm
seeing more and more evidence of an emerging third stage, the
expensive site built in a CMS so badly conceived that execution of any
on-page optimisation is well-nigh impossible, the functionality simply
hasn't been built in. Try telling people that too!

Well Bill, as coder of a (still crappy, but compact & versatile) CMS, I'm
curious. What would your needs be for SEO?

Er, you don't already know? Why are you building one if you don't
already know?

Meta tags can be inserted on the
fly (for the whole site, a custom portion of the site or a single 'page'),
people are thoroughly stimulated to use headings instead of markup (I want
this bold, underlined, with a greater font => no, you want a heading that
looks like that).

Tell me your needs and I'll do my best to incorporate them :-).

I'm putting a page together about just that issue. I'll post here when
it's up, maybe folk can Digg it or whatever the current fashion is
now.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:35:42 +0100, "Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

John Bokma wrote:
"Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:
I think we're solidly into stage three of sites that are so badly
built they're impossible to optimise. Stage one was sites built in
frames, although mostly there was at least something that could be
done with them. Stage two was Flash, and as we all know the only
thing to do with an all-Flash site is build another one in html. Now
I'm seeing more and more evidence of an emerging third stage, the
expensive site built in a CMS so badly conceived that execution of
any on-page optimisation is well-nigh impossible, the functionality
simply hasn't been built in. Try telling people that too!

Well Bill, as coder of a (still crappy, but compact & versatile) CMS,
I'm curious. What would your needs be for SEO? Meta tags can be
inserted on the fly (for the whole site, a custom portion of the site
or a single 'page')

Meta tags are not that important.

Highly overestimated for sure.

, people are thoroughly stimulated to use headings
instead of markup (I want this bold, underlined, with a greater font
=> no, you want a heading that looks like that).

Tell me your needs and I'll do my best to incorporate them :-).

If you support XHTML, remove it ;-)

I have, but I've learned my lesson. HTML4.01 Strict all the way.

I'd be more inclined to go for Transitional. Give people room, they'll
need it.

But the styles idea sounds good, especially if it's the only way to
change the looks of things.

Well, classes are also made on the fly, with particular layout, but a
'<h2>' sais infinitly more then a '<div>' offcourse...

I'm alwasy frightened when the people determining these essential
criteria are obviously doing it in their second or third language...
:-(

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On 16 Dec 2006 19:54:40 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Well, classes are also made on the fly, with particular layout, but a
'<h2>' sais infinitly more then a '<div>' offcourse...

Yup, very true. And often those small things can make the difference
between being on page 1 or page 2 in Google.

Or page 20.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:02:32 +0000, Paul B
<customerservices (AT) houstoncrafts (DOT) com> wrote:

On 16 Dec 2006 18:22:31 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

If you support XHTML, remove it ;-)

What's wrong with XHTML ?
One of my sites is XHTML and works in all browsers tested as well as
very good in the SERPS ?

Much harder to allow for in a CMS Paul.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm

Big Bill wrote:

Well Bill, as coder of a (still crappy, but compact & versatile)
CMS, I'm curious. What would your needs be for SEO?

Er, you don't already know? Why are you building one if you don't
already know?

Heuy, I'm no SEO. I can make a nice package for you where everything you
want to change on a page is changeable, and I know my HTML semantics.
Figuring out what search-engines want is not my cup of tea though, and
unless specified explicitly on my contract (in which case I outsource it
:-), not my job. What IS my job, is to make important changes as easy as
possible, and if specified what those changes are, are can get you there
very fast.

Meta tags can be inserted on the
fly (for the whole site, a custom portion of the site or a single
'page'), people are thoroughly stimulated to use headings instead of
markup (I want this bold, underlined, with a greater font => no, you
want a heading that looks like that).

Tell me your needs and I'll do my best to incorporate them :-).

I'm putting a page together about just that issue. I'll post here when
it's up, maybe folk can Digg it or whatever the current fashion is
now.

Check, I'll look for it.
--
Rik Wasmus