please be gentle!

Hi everybody!

I have been reading this ng for some time now, and have been collecting
courage to ask your opinion of this site, that has been running some
months now.

There are some issues on the site, that I know they could be better. For
instance link names could be more reasonable. Also, I'm not sure whether
I should remove those meta-keywords -tags. Both of these issues affect
the page ranking in searchmachines. The contact form seems to collet
only spam, and I have been suggesting we'd simply remove it, but she
hasn't decided yet.

But, anyway, considering these issues I mentioned, and any other you
might spot, what do you suggest?

The url of this tiny simple site is http://www.sanas.fi


Olli

ollimax wrote:

Hi everybody!

I have been reading this ng for some time now, and have been collecting
courage to ask your opinion of this site, that has been running some
months now.

There are some issues on the site, that I know they could be better. For
instance link names could be more reasonable. Also, I'm not sure whether
I should remove those meta-keywords -tags. Both of these issues affect
the page ranking in searchmachines. The contact form seems to collet
only spam, and I have been suggesting we'd simply remove it, but she
hasn't decided yet.

But, anyway, considering these issues I mentioned, and any other you
might spot, what do you suggest?

The url of this tiny simple site is http://www.sanas.fi


Olli
Hi.

The site is not to bad, I would suggest removing the keyword tags as
they (Google and the like take no notice of them and may even think
your trying to spam them. The only usefull meta tags are the Title and
description ones.
It might be useful to have a link to the home page on all pages, or at
least on the ones off the home page.
You should also use a strict document type, as transitional is only for
transitioning from old pages.
A lot of people will advise against useing XHTML, instead of HTML, as
you need to serve it as text/html anyway. But I do use XHTML, but if
you use it in strict then FireFox and other standards compliant
browsers will render the page in standards compliant mode, while IE
will still run in quirks mode. A long with a few other browsers.
I like XHTML though as I like the mark-up it provides, although their
is nothing stopping you from doing the same thing in HTML 4.01 strict.
By that, I mean closeing all tags.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Chaddy2222 wrote:

I would suggest removing the keyword tags as
they (Google and the like take no notice of them and may even think
your trying to spam them. The only usefull meta tags are the Title and
description ones.

taht's what I'v been thinkig as well. At least they doesn't seem to
improve anything.
But I think meta-language is worth saving, since many people use
language settings with searches. And I have also heard that description
would be better to be left away, since it also might be consdered as
spamming.
This is just the trouble with these searchengines: more opinions you
ask, more _different_ opinions yu get . No one has exact knowledge.

It might be useful to have a link to the home page on all pages, or at
least on the ones off the home page.

Wpuld it be wise to change 'company' link to 'home'? The company logo
takes user to the (finnish) homepage.

You should also use a strict document type, as transitional is only for
transitioning from old pages.
A lot of people will advise against useing XHTML, instead of HTML, as
you need to serve it as text/html anyway. But I do use XHTML, but if
you use it in strict then FireFox and other standards compliant
browsers will render the page in standards compliant mode, while IE
will still run in quirks mode. A long with a few other browsers.
I like XHTML though as I like the mark-up it provides, although their
is nothing stopping you from doing the same thing in HTML 4.01 strict.
By that, I mean closeing all tags.

Yes, I have seen nagging around about transitional document type. and
since i have not tampered with xml, it might as well start using html.

HTML4.01 strict doesn't turn browsers (including IE) to quirks-mode,
does it?

Teppo Tulppu wrote:

Sorry, I seem to have different nicks in my computers.

rgrds,


Olli

Chaddy2222 wrote:

I would suggest removing the keyword tags as
they (Google and the like take no notice of them and may even think
your trying to spam them. The only usefull meta tags are the Title and
description ones.

taht's what I'v been thinkig as well. At least they doesn't seem to
improve anything.
But I think meta-language is worth saving, since many people use
language settings with searches. And I have also heard that description
would be better to be left away, since it also might be consdered as
spamming.
This is just the trouble with these searchengines: more opinions you
ask, more _different_ opinions yu get . No one has exact knowledge.

It might be useful to have a link to the home page on all pages, or at
least on the ones off the home page.

Wpuld it be wise to change 'company' link to 'home'? The company logo
takes user to the (finnish) homepage.

You should also use a strict document type, as transitional is only for
transitioning from old pages.
A lot of people will advise against useing XHTML, instead of HTML, as
you need to serve it as text/html anyway. But I do use XHTML, but if
you use it in strict then FireFox and other standards compliant
browsers will render the page in standards compliant mode, while IE
will still run in quirks mode. A long with a few other browsers.
I like XHTML though as I like the mark-up it provides, although their
is nothing stopping you from doing the same thing in HTML 4.01 strict.
By that, I mean closeing all tags.

Yes, I have seen nagging around about transitional document type. and
since i have not tampered with xml, it might as well start using html.

HTML4.01 strict doesn't turn browsers (including IE) to quirks-mode,
does it?

Teppo Tulppu wrote:

Chaddy2222 wrote:

I would suggest removing the keyword tags as
they (Google and the like take no notice of them and may even think
your trying to spam them. The only usefull meta tags are the Title and
description ones.

taht's what I'v been thinkig as well. At least they doesn't seem to
improve anything.
But I think meta-language is worth saving, since many people use
language settings with searches. And I have also heard that description
would be better to be left away, since it also might be consdered as
spamming.

Google users the description when it displays the page, to give people
an idea of the content, I believe yahoo and MSN do as well.

This is just the trouble with these searchengines: more opinions you
ask, more _different_ opinions yu get . No one has exact knowledge.


Yep, it's due to us not knowing how, or what method they use to index

pages, if you know what I mean. No one knows the Google Elgerithem (or
whatever it's called), it's getting late and I am too lazie to look up
the proper spelling.

It might be useful to have a link to the home page on all pages, or
at
least on the ones off the home page.

Wpuld it be wise to change 'company' link to 'home'? The company logo
takes user to the (finnish) homepage.

You should also use a strict document type, as transitional is only for
transitioning from old pages.
A lot of people will advise against useing XHTML, instead of HTML, as
you need to serve it as text/html anyway. But I do use XHTML, but if
you use it in strict then FireFox and other standards compliant
browsers will render the page in standards compliant mode, while IE
will still run in quirks mode. A long with a few other browsers.
I like XHTML though as I like the mark-up it provides, although their
is nothing stopping you from doing the same thing in HTML 4.01 strict.
By that, I mean closeing all tags.

Yes, I have seen nagging around about transitional document type. and
since i have not tampered with xml, it might as well start using html.

HTML4.01 strict doesn't turn browsers (including IE) to quirks-mode,
does it?
No, it only does it with XHTML due to the lack of support for it in IE.

--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

ollimax wrote:

But, anyway, considering these issues I mentioned, and any other you
might spot, what do you suggest?

The site looks good. It states clearly what you are all about. The
English is very readable.

The pages have a minor inconsistency that bugs me. The whitespace
between the footer information and the body varies from almost none (my
favorite) to a third of the page. This yields unnecessary vertical
scrolling.

The links color change from green to brown is fairly difficult for me
tell apart. I would either underline unvisited, line-through visited, or
change the colors.

The page requires horizontal scrolling way too soon. At 960 px, I get
horizontal scrolling - should at least be able to take it down to 800
with out that happening.

HTH
--
TK
http://wejuggle2.com/
Still Having a Ball

----== 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 =----

Terry wrote:

ollimax wrote:

But, anyway, considering these issues I mentioned, and any other you
might spot, what do you suggest?


The site looks good. It states clearly what you are all about. The
English is very readable.
Should be, it's her (the lady on the pages, not me) own text, and

writing in foreign language is what translators do at the daytime.

The pages have a minor inconsistency that bugs me. The whitespace
between the footer information and the body varies from almost none (my
favorite) to a third of the page. This yields unnecessary vertical
scrolling.
Er... yes I can see what you mean. Have to fix it somehow.

The links color change from green to brown is fairly difficult for me
tell apart. I would either underline unvisited, line-through visited, or
change the colors.

Very good point! I wonder why I didn't realize that by myself.

The page requires horizontal scrolling way too soon. At 960 px, I get
horizontal scrolling - should at least be able to take it down to 800
with out that happening.

To be honest, I knew this would happen and took the risk. I decided to
put menu on the right side, so that the actual text would stay visible
if window is too narrow. I considered, that people with 800 resolution
are quite few today and they still _can_ use the page. On the other
hand, not everyone want to surf with maximaized window. I think perhaps
shrink it a bit, or make a completely relative layout, which could be
better idea.


rgrds,


Olli, aka Teppo Tulppu

ollimax wrote:

I have been reading this ng for some time now, and have been collecting
courage to ask your opinion of this site, that has been running some
months now.

The url of this tiny simple site is http://www.sanas.fi

The fixed width design is unnecessary. As it is the menu is lost on the

right. It may not be seen at all for people who have set their viewport
narrower than 800px.
The grey background pattern could be a bit lighter.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)