- Thanks to MSN
- Posted by carlrs on March 24th, 2006
OK, the last check did not show these errors, BUT thy are mostly tag
errors, and that still does not address the search relevency isssues
(Googles wieght on "content", ect.), nor the problems with Adsense.
Carl
- Posted by carlrs on March 25th, 2006
By the way, I ran a validation check on a very cluttered ("content
rich"- LOL) site that Google "likes":
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...line&verbose=1
This site (about.com) had double the errors my site had. My points
stand.
Carl
- Posted by Matt Probert on March 25th, 2006
On 25 Mar 2006 07:49:39 -0800, "carlrs"
<carl@americanaquariumproducts.com> wrote:
Just for reference, adherence to W3C standards doesn't affect Google
ranking. The confusion can arise where the Google spider can not
access the data in a site perhaps because of errors on the page. The
best way to check this is to run pages through a character-based text
browser, such as Lynx, and see if they make sense to you. If they do,
then they will also be crawlable.
Matt
- Posted by Paul Ding on March 25th, 2006
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:50:58 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.mous@example.invalid> posted something that included:
Only if you validate against THE WRONG DOCTYPE.
Perhaps, but you need a different validator.
When I insert the proper DOCTYPE for that page - which is
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Draft//EN"> - and post the
page as http://amishhosting.com/test/Amer.htm, your validator refuses
to use that doctype, and validates against a DIFFERENT doctype
instead.
Hells bells, Beau, what's the point of *specifying* a doctype, if the
validator is going to ignore it anyway?
For instance, the second error it comes up with is that the required
ALT attribute for an IMG tag is not present - but under HTML 4.0
Draft, the ALT attribute was NOT required.
Try validating the page with tidy.exe instead of the broken validator
you specify, and you'll find some warnings but NO errors.
--
AmishHosting.com
- Posted by Beauregard T. Shagnasty on March 25th, 2006
Paul Ding wrote:
What?
Get real. I sent the page (which has no DOCTYPE) from his site to the
validator and it said "No DOCTYPE" among many other errors.
It is not *my* validator.
Hell's Bells, "Draft" is not on the list at the W3 validator.
The guy's doctype is not Draft. It is .. nothing. How many errors would
you get if you changed it to .. oh .. Frameset?
The W3 works fine for me. You post as if you are pretending you never
heard of the W3 validator before.
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
- Posted by Kate on March 25th, 2006
"As for my site www.americanaquariumproducts.com , We have a site that
is easy to use (our feedback tells us so), but we do not try and appeal
to search engines with overloaded content. We have links that are on
the most part relevent to our site in some way. We also carry unique
products that can be found no where else. "
I think you are kind of missing the point. Search engines aren't
looking for ease of use, unique products or anything else that might
appeal to a human who has actually arrived on your site. The bots need
to know two things, what your site is about, and how relevant that is
to a particular search term. Looking at your code, you aren't really
telling them that. The title tag on your home page isn't anything a
real person would search for, and your description reads more like
advertising blurb. What's more, the first table cell the bot will come
to contains an image (with no alt tag) and no relevant content. The
same is true of the next five table cells. Alt tags are essentail,
because bots can't see images, so they have no way of knowing their
relevance unless you tell them. None of your links contain a title tag.
Plus, I can't see a single header tag on the whole page. These tags are
essential.
Having a reputation going back any number of years isn't relevant.
Think of the internet as a new town where nobody knows you, you need to
build a whole new reputation, you can't just rest on the laurels of the
old one.
Finally, even if your code has been validated by a professional, which
seems unlikely because alt, title and header tags are a very basic
principle, this still doesn't mean your site is optimised for search
engines. Why not take a deep breath, accept that you might be wrong,
and learn a little about SEO.
Kate
- Posted by SmakDaddy on March 25th, 2006
"Kate" <kate.gilby@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143324407.723195.125410@v46g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
yum
- Posted by carlrs on March 26th, 2006
I appreciate the constructive critism, but we do have alt tags with our
images and and title tags with our links. Your right about the header
and maybe the titles should be improved. BUT we did have two diffferent
"experts" look at this site last year and make changes including a
Google site map, (one we met here on a Google group). Why do we do well
on MSN and reletively well on Yahoo?
Carl
- Posted by SmakDaddy on March 26th, 2006
"carlrs" <carl@americanaquariumproducts.com> wrote in message
news:1143332169.035673.171860@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
I think the more appropriate question is:
What do you think?
SmakDaddy
http://themooseisloose.net
- Posted by carlrs on March 26th, 2006
Yes, the original statement, " Thanks MSN"
Carl
