SEO sorta...?

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Meta tags

Important
2
13%
Not so much
9
56%
Meh I use em' anyways just incase
5
31%
 
Total votes: 16

Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

shiznatix wrote:the google site lists content and content-esqu stuff much higher than valid html.
The google site doesn't list it in order. Google keeps their algorithm very private, so that SEO's can't abuse the system (and they have several times in the last few years when they got "closer" to figuring it out). The important part is that google specifically does list *correct* html.
shiznatix wrote:but if you forget a </table> or a </p> somewhere then im positive its not going to make google not list your site.
1. I never said they wouldn't list it at all. I said they couldn't *see* the content. Thats still accurate.
2. If its not correct html, it doesn't match what google said. Period.
3. Your level of confidence does not change their statement to "mostly correct html". They said correct html.
shiznatix wrote:google did not even mention "css" a single time on the page you listed.
No, but they did list issues related to each of the five points I brought up, none of which you've presented counter evidence to.

Plenty of pages talk about why css is good for google, echoing many of the comments we've already made.

Regardless, we're off-topic. The OP wanted to know the elements *I* considered most important for proper ranking. I've given them, and explained why I consider them important. That is not an invitation to argue whether those are accurate or not.
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

Roja wrote:
shiznatix wrote:the google site lists content and content-esqu stuff much higher than valid html.
The google site doesn't list it in order. Google keeps their algorithm very private, so that SEO's can't abuse the system (and they have several times in the last few years when they got "closer" to figuring it out). The important part is that google specifically does list *correct* html.
shiznatix wrote:but if you forget a </table> or a </p> somewhere then im positive its not going to make google not list your site.
1. I never said they wouldn't list it at all. I said they couldn't *see* the content. Thats still accurate.
2. If its not correct html, it doesn't match what google said. Period.
3. Your level of confidence does not change their statement to "mostly correct html". They said correct html.
shiznatix wrote:google did not even mention "css" a single time on the page you listed.
No, but they did list issues related to each of the five points I brought up, none of which you've presented counter evidence to.

Plenty of pages talk about why css is good for google, echoing many of the comments we've already made.

Regardless, we're off-topic. The OP wanted to know the elements *I* considered most important for proper ranking. I've given them, and explained why I consider them important. That is not an invitation to argue whether those are accurate or not.
Thanks for that ;)

Especially the Google link :)
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

Speaking of valid HTML. This worries me.... Serco, a HUGE software development company run courses:

http://www.sercolearning.com/

Take a look at this page source -- see anything invalid??? Very professional :P I wonder what Google makes of that ;)
User avatar
Buddha443556
Forum Regular
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by Buddha443556 »

FireFox users don't click d11's link above.

The site uses cloaking and a lot of javascript and will crash Firefox 1.5 at least. Use IE to view the site and to see what d11 is referring to. It could be one of 7 crappy wonders of the internet or at least deserves a nomination.
josh
DevNet Master
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Palm beach, Florida

Post by josh »

d11wtq wrote:see anything invalid???
Nope :wink:




I like how they foward me through like 10 pages before I get sent to the final site, just what exactly are they doing?
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Buddha443556 wrote:FireFox users don't click d11's link above.[/b]

The site uses cloaking and a lot of javascript and will crash Firefox 1.5 at least.
My FF-1.5 displays it.. its horrible, but it displays it.
User avatar
John Cartwright
Site Admin
Posts: 11470
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by John Cartwright »

Roja wrote:
Buddha443556 wrote:FireFox users don't click d11's link above.[/b]

The site uses cloaking and a lot of javascript and will crash Firefox 1.5 at least.
My FF-1.5 displays it.. its horrible, but it displays it.
Same here.
User avatar
Buddha443556
Forum Regular
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by Buddha443556 »

Using LINK and Title in response header. Never seen LINK before and can't find it in the HTTP 1.1 specs.

Code: Select all

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-Control: private
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:37:10 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
Content-Length: 1084
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:37:12 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/Default/default.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/Default/standard.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/InstitutionTypes/default/default.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/InstitutionTypes/default/standard.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/Themes/default/default.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Link: </LearningSystem/Stylesheets/Themes/default/standard.css>; rel="stylesheet"; type="text/css"
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDCQASQRTQ=DAMPJPOBHJKJKLPMPFCLIABP; path=/
Title: Browser Settings
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Buddha443556 wrote:Using LINK and Title in response header. Never seen LINK before and can't find it in the HTTP 1.1 specs.
We are *seriously* offtopic here. Debugging a horrible page has nothing to do with the original topic.
Post Reply