Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:31 pm
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.

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:14 pm
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 :)

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:04 pm
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 ;)

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:55 pm
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.

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:09 pm
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?

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:10 pm
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.

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:21 pm
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.

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:52 pm
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

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:19 pm
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.