Paul Ding wrote:

Missing the alt attribute for an IMG *is* and error in HTML 4.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40....html#edef-IMG

In HTML 3.2 alt is optional.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

webmasters in
this group - who are all telling you the same thing the validators are
saying.


I came here for help but I got very mixed help, one person states my
site is not being properly validated and is fine, others totally
trashing it. I ran error checks on site that I feel are very difficult
to use and found up to triple the errors, yet they placed well on
Google. As for difficulty of using my site, my feedback has been
EXTREMELY positive. The problem my customers have is, if they use
Google, I am hard to find. But the same keywords find me on MSN.
When I spoke to the Webmaster (Mitch Cohen), anaylized my site and felt
more of my problems were in how my "tags" were laid out, which based on
responses here made the most sense.
My decision to follow Mr. Cohen's advice was in NO WAY a dis on this
group. I came here very frustrated with Google on many levels, but
wanting honest answers, I got very mixed advice (and not to say anyone
was wrong).
Heck, If anyone would like to improve my site for $ (other than
changing hosts), I am all ears. I am a small business and do not have
alot of funding, but I also realize that sometimes it takes money to
make money. I have run a very sucessful brick & motar business in LA,
CA for 27 years and I know what it takes to run a small business, but I
make no such claims about SEO. (Believe me, I would much rather be in
my old business, but we had to move to an isolated area to protect my
daughter).
Carl
americanaquariumproducts@yahoo.com

carlrs wrote:
No, much of the advice you got was consistent. Fix the validation errors.

But you don't want to hear it, so you look for reasons to justify your position.

Go ahead - keep your poor position on Google. It doesn't hurt anyone here.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On 26 Mar 2006 17:31:16 -0800, "carlrs"
<carl@americanaquariumproducts.com> wrote:

You actually got some very interesting feedback - here and at
alt.internet.search-engines (where you also shared a similar pat on
the back about your ranking on MSN views).
, one person states my

But are you concerned about thier site's ranking on Google - or your
own site? If the latter, then why waste time running error checks on
other people's sites when that time could be spent correcting some
errors, that causes problems in your pages being rendered, that a
couple of people shared with you?

About HTML validators, you mentioned mixed results between various
programs. No clue what you are using but HTML Tidy is the most
recommended, from what i have seen, and you can use the online version
at W3C's site or http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/ allows you,
or it did the last time I used it, to check up to 100 pages in one
click. You can also download a copy of HTML Tidy.

As for difficulty of using my site, my feedback has been
People who cannot bring your pages up will not likely complain,
though, now will they? After all, they can't bring up the pages to see
any contact information shared by you through the site.

Then again, think about it - how many sites have you visited that you
encountered problems (text hard to read, color scheme hurt your eyes,
missing pages, not rendering properly in your browser) have you
written to the site owner to let them know about those problems?
Compliments are great - but not all complaints or opinions about your
site will be shared with you by folks visiting your site. Part of the
fun of having a site though, I guess.

[snip]
I didn't get the impression that you really wanted advice but to
applaud MSN and sometimes Yahoo due to your poor ranking at Google.

Recall, however, that even Yahoo and MSN's results differ from each
other. Each search engine has their own algorithem. Let's face it,
everyone wants to rank well on Google - since it is the #1 search
engine right now; but sadly, not everyone _can_ and if they really
_really_ want to improve their ranking on Google, then they have to
pull up their sleeves and put more effort toward that goal - even if
it is to break into the Top 20.

Why so quick on pulling out the checkbook? *points to this thread* You
got some advice to help improve your site for FREE - by folks who
"been there, done that" even.

I am a small business and do not have
And time involvement and some elbow grease along with swallowing of
one's pride from time to time too.

I have run a very sucessful brick & motar business in LA,
Then sit back, review what has been shared with you so far - and you
can read the archives of this group and the search engines one for
some other posts to mull over.

Another freely shared resource I will share with you is look up a copy
of Bret (forget his last name at the moment)'s article about 26 steps
to ranking well at Google. The article is about 2 to 3 years old but
majority of the advice, in my opinion, is still good ... and although
he mentions Google, I wouldn't say that a lot of the advice is
strictly limited to Google but can help you/your other pages on MSN
and Yahoo as well.

However, it is process that you have to be patient with - took me a
little while to get my present rankings but I have also held onto
those placements during algo changes at Google with only slight shifts
up or down - by slight I am meaning a postion or two. I also rank well
on MSN and Yahoo, although I didn't break into a sweat on trying for
those two search engines as they are actually easier to rank better
on. (my opinion).

Carol

Please have the courtesy to not put words in my mouth, you obviously
did not read all the posts here or you would not make such a statement.
One point I made earlier was that I had someone I met on a Google
usenet group last summmer fix the validation errors they found, but as
Paul Ding stated it depends which program is used to validate. I also
stated the qualifications of the person I spoke with, (He runs a large
internet hosting business), and the fact that another poory usable site
(at least in my opinion) has triple the errors as mine yet places well
on Google. I am interested in improving on Google and I am definately
not saying you are wrong, only that I will try one suggestion at a
time. But based on your horrible attitude, I sure would not use your
services.
Carl

Thank you for the great advice, your points are well taken.

Carl

On 27 Mar 2006 17:58:41 -0800, "carlrs"
<carl@americanaquariumproducts.com> wrote:

I also just left you a long post on alt.internet.search-engines in
regard to your earlier (in time) post there - in it I went through the
two URLs you provided to that NG and shared my thoughts about what I
saw that may be helpful to you to work on while you go about tweaking
things with the HTML/javascript. Basically it is just some things I
would do, if in your shoes. *shrug*

Best of luck!

Carol

carlrs wrote:
Carl,

Quite frankly, if you did approach me I'd turn you down anyway.

I did read all of the messages in this thread. And the responses of those I
respect all said exactly the same thing.

Who cares what another site has for errors? And I do all my validation through
the w3c site validator. It's the best one I've found.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:15:30 +0100, Toby Inkster
<usenet200603@tobyinkster.co.uk> posted something that included:

You're looking at revisionist HTML/4.

In the original version of HTML/4.0, the alt tag was NOT required:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970708/
--
AmishHosting.com

Paul Ding wrote:
No -- I'm looking at the HTML 4.0 recommendation.

You're looking at an early draft version -- the clue is in the page title,
which is "HTML 4.0 Working Draft Release".

Police, when deciding whether to charge a suspect, don't use draft bills
of legislation; they use the final acts of parliament.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact