Stage three of bad coding

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!

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 schreef:

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!

I am telling them exactly that, for more than 2 years now. Do you think
any one is going to listen? No.

So, let them. Let them build shitty sites. Eventually they will come to
some one who is capable of making good sites.


--
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 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:45:32 +0100, tonnie <t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl>
wrote:

Big Bill schreef:
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!

I am telling them exactly that, for more than 2 years now. Do you think
any one is going to listen? No.

So, let them. Let them build shitty sites. Eventually they will come to
some one who is capable of making good sites.

Do you know a CMS that works for SEO?

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 schreef:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:45:32 +0100, tonnie <t.prasing (AT) chello (DOT) nl
wrote:

Big Bill schreef:
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!
I am telling them exactly that, for more than 2 years now. Do you think
any one is going to listen? No.

So, let them. Let them build shitty sites. Eventually they will come to
some one who is capable of making good sites.

Do you know a CMS that works for SEO?

No, there are some that do a pretty nice job, but all of them have
limitations.

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

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

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'),
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 :-).
--
Rik Wasmus

"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.

, 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 ;-)

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

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

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.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

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.

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...
--
Rik Wasmus

"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.

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html

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

--
John Need help with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html