|
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Search engine optimisation rossi 10-28-2003, 11:03 AM Im trying my hardest to get my website lidted on search engines, in the top figures, can anyone please give me some advice on the best way todo it, the site is made with frames by the way. i hope some one can help. have a very nice week regards Rossi Vladdy 10-28-2003, 11:07 AM Without seeing the code the general suggestion would be to increase "signal to noise ratio" by using semantically meaningful markup and utilizing CSS for presentation. Under "semantically meaning markup" falls the following: - Make use of correct <h*> tree - Use <a href="http... for links (no javascript dependence) - Make use of link elements in the document <head> oh and dumping frames is the first thing to do, by the way rossi 10-29-2003, 08:59 AM thanks any more tips fellow peps!? zyex 10-29-2003, 12:36 PM Google is one of, if not the most popular search engine on the net. Check out http://www.google.com/webmasters/ for tips from google on how to get your site listed, and the do's and don'ts This may also help with other search engines, as i expect the same methods are used for crawling sites by other search engines. Hope this helps... rossi 10-30-2003, 05:24 AM okay next question is... ive paid for submission in yahoo about £200, but am not coming up. any one shed some light, again i guess i need to optimise my site, but how does one do it if he has frames!! :confused: thanks rossi Charles 10-30-2003, 05:35 AM See the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/). The way they use the term, "accessible" means "accessible to all user agents." If you follow those rules your page will work for Braille and audio browsers and search engines will be able to understand it. gizmo 10-30-2003, 01:36 PM Ignore Vladdy's remarks about dumping frames, he obviously doesn't know how to handle them. If you design with frames such that search engines can crawl your site there's no problem. Send me a Private Message if you need help in this direction.:) Vladdy 10-30-2003, 06:06 PM All one needs to know about frames: 1. They are the thing of the past and there is no good reason to use them. 2. The only legitimate use of frames, which is inclusion of one object into another, is accomplished nowadays with <object> element. If you want your web page be a laughing stock of web, go ahead and listen to "frames experts" :rolleyes: zyex 10-30-2003, 06:32 PM I would have to agree with gizmo...ignore vladdys remarks.. using frames can be very powerful, if used correctly.... Frames are not a thing of the past..plain boring text based websites made up of basic html markup and and basic, badly designed gifs are...how is the web supposed to move forward with bad advice from the likes of vladdy.... use frames, use flash, use javascript, stream movies etc.... If you design a web site that utilises frames, you should provide an alternative means of accessing the pages in case the user doesn't have a frame enabled browser.... If designing a site using flash, make sure that you provide a non-flash version.... etc... Imagine what the web would be like if all sites looked like the W3C site... Not everyone is browsing websites through screen readers...or out of date browsers... "If you want your web page be a laughing stock of the web, go ahead and listen to "vladdy"" PunkSktBrdr01 10-30-2003, 06:56 PM Actually, frames are really unnecessary nowadays. You can simply use divs with SSI or a server-side language to include content into a page. zyex 10-30-2003, 07:09 PM i am not talking about including content, i am talking about page layout, design, stucture, navigation... all of which should not be compromised when designing and implementing a website... the point is that you can and should use any technologies that are available...and none of them will have a negative or positive impact on search engine rankings... Charles made a point about Web Content Accessibility Guidelines... there are a lot of designers who design sites and as long as it looks good on their computer, theyre happy... as long as you are aware that other users could be viewing it with different types of browsers and provide them with a suitable version of the website, why should you not design websites for people who can view them in the latest browsers, using the latest plugins...should we discriminate against people with no disabilites? PunkSktBrdr01 10-30-2003, 08:25 PM i am not talking about including content, i am talking about page layout, design, stucture, navigation... You can use scrollable divs for anything. as long as you are aware that other users could be viewing it with different types of browsers and provide them with a suitable version of the website, why should you not design websites for people who can view them in the latest browsers, using the latest plugins...should we discriminate against people with no disabilites? As long as you don't rely on JavaScript for browser detection, that should be fine. However, that's a lot of unnecessary work, considering you could just use standards-compliant CSS to make the site work for both modern and alternative browsers. zyex 10-30-2003, 08:36 PM can a div hold a flash movie without the flash movie being refreshed every time a user navigates to another page? If so, i would be interested how? of course, you could use actionscript to check if the movie is cached as soon as it is loaded.....but due to time contraints when developing sites for clients, the best option is to stick a flash movie in a frameset.....instead of writing scripts that can only achieve the same goal as a frameset does your boss give you an unlimited timescale when creating websites? PunkSktBrdr01 10-30-2003, 08:42 PM What kind of Flash movie are you referring to? If it's a logo, it would only be a few seconds long, and therefore a refresh wouldn't matter. If it's a longer movie or a game, the user would have no reason to refresh the page during the movie/game anyway. Sux0rZh@jc0rz 10-30-2003, 10:28 PM Originally posted by PunkSktBrdr01 What kind of Flash movie are you referring to? If it's a logo, it would only be a few seconds long, and therefore a refresh wouldn't matter. If it's a longer movie or a game, the user would have no reason to refresh the page during the movie/game anyway. :mad: :mad: If you have flash that relodas, you kill the point to having flash. Flash images can be HUGE with a filesize equal to a 10x10 image, but what people really want is that neat, clean effect it gives. if your site reloads, then it looks like just an imagebased website. thus killing flash's main function. Flash is a movie that you interact with. If, while you were watching a movie, I turned the tv on and off everytime it changed scenes, you'd get pissed off and stop watching the movie and/or beat me over the head with a blunt object. Flash that reloads repeatly is just stupid. dont take away it's best feature(clean interface that stays constant and fast once it has been loaded) spufi 10-30-2003, 11:20 PM What's the most current DTD? XHTML 1.1. Is there a Frameset DTD for XHTML 1.1? No. Why? Because frames suck. The valid reasons for using frames is basically nil. I don't know of any top web designer who uses them. Zeldman? Meyer? If they were to use frames at all, it would be an iframe, and even using an iframe is debatable. zyex 10-31-2003, 03:42 AM Sux0rZh@jc0rz's point is right.... spufi - I don't know of any top web designer who uses them - check out the likes of www.2advanced.com if they arent top web designers using frames, i don't know who are... The only reason that these people are saying that frames suck is gizmo's first point - because they don't know how to handle them....where and when not to use them...the list could go on pyro 10-31-2003, 07:36 AM Originally posted by zyex check out the likes of www.2advanced.com if they arent top web designers using frames, i don't know who are...Where exactly do they use frames? zyex 10-31-2003, 08:13 AM check out their portfolio... http://www.westonfl.org/ http://www.ggleague.com/ http://www.skyworksinc.com/ http://www.foundstone.com/ ...to name but a few Vladdy 10-31-2003, 09:14 AM Too advanced to be of any use...:rolleyes: http://www.vladdy.net/westonfl.jpg http://www.vladdy.net/qqleague.jpg And if you try viewing those sites in a text browser things only get worse... :D :D :D :D Robert Wellock 10-31-2003, 09:33 AM Professional webmasters do use frames although they do have their limitations basically you should only use frames when you are going to make some use out of them rather than merely for a decoration aspect. Essentially where the frame is most use is for is for programming type interfaces and I myself have seen companies like IBM/Lexmark use them as Print Server interfaces – because I have helped their technicians before with such frame issues. Cisco Systems also use them for there online courses and within XHTML 1.1 you can use frames though they have been transformed to XFrames basically the rule is use them wisely but in general steer away from them. Iframes are worse than standard frames and should be outlawed. You got ripped off if you paid £200 since other engines feed Yahoo! zyex 10-31-2003, 09:44 AM vladdy....did you bother to read any of my previous posts before trying to prove an invalid point.... my first suggestion would be to download the flash plugin.... it can be found on the macromedia site... 2advanced are one of the leading web design companies in the world....if you don't know that...i suggest you start having a look around the web at some sites that have been designed by designers... spufi 10-31-2003, 09:58 AM If a site looks pretty means they are a top designer, then I'll give you that. However, I looked at the code for two of the sites. One used frames for pure layout reasons and they weren't even needed. The other won't validate at all and it uses JavaScript to create the frame code, and then uses the <noframe> tag to create pretty much the site anyway. *sigh* zyex 10-31-2003, 10:16 AM ok my point about the 2advanced sites was in reaction to your statement saying that top designers don't use frames. 2advanced should take more care with their coding....i made a point earlier about designing websites using the latest technologies available, whilst still providing an option for those who can't view that kind of content..... The point is you can use whatever technology you want......why shouldnt anyone use frames.... there are a few frame properties that are not supported by the W3C so if you use these, the page won't validate...so what? a frame enabled browser will recognise these....a non-frame enabled browser won't even care if they are there.... You should all quit your obsessions with every site validating with the W3C....next you will be saying that all websites should be bobby approved - not even the bobby website is bobby approved... Vladdy 10-31-2003, 10:18 AM Why should I want to install a flash plug in??? If they did not make their content available for me, I move the next company that provides similar services. What you fail to understand is that the days when you could "wow" customers with your eye candy are over. Yes, their graphical design (when it can be seen) is good, but it does not take into account the specifics of web as a medium. Their designs would be great as printed brochures and such, but not suited for the web. With web clients spreading from desktop PCs with predictable resolution and color depth to cell-phones, PDA, non-graphical medium, the focus of the design has shifted from eye-candy, which requires the latest technology, to content suplemented with scalable presetation. The greatest graphical layout will make me think "cute", but it won't make me buy a product, if I can not find my way to it. zyex 10-31-2003, 10:30 AM you should want to install a flash plugin? cos this is 2003 not 1997...get with it.... the days of wowing people with eye candy are over? whats that supposed to mean - they days of websites designed well, which are graphically stimulating, and provide content as the client wishes it to be provided are over....to be replaced by simple text based websites that have been designed so that they can be viewed on all of your managers latest gadgets or some old pc.... designs are good for print but not suitable for the web.....read my point above....information is delivered in many different forms over the web.....lets sack that and just deliver it all as text based web sites making sure that we adhere to anything that the W3C tell us to do...and while were at it, why don't we all get some tips of old jakob... you obviously don't want the web to progress.... spufi 10-31-2003, 10:30 AM The site's inability to validate was more than just using frames. They didn't even use a Doctype. Being a professional web designer is one thing, but to be considered a top one you need the visual aspect as well as the quality of code. I can make a pretty web site that's butt ugly in terms of code. spufi 10-31-2003, 10:36 AM Originally posted by zyex you should want to install a flash plugin? cos this is 2003 not 1997...get with it.... the days of wowing people with eye candy are over? whats that supposed to mean - they days of websites designed well, which are graphically stimulating, and provide content as the client wishes it to be provided are over....to be replaced by simple text based websites that have been designed so that they can be viewed on all of your managers latest gadgets or some old pc.... designs are good for print but not suitable for the web.....read my point above....information is delivered in many different forms over the web.....lets sack that and just deliver it all as text based web sites making sure that we adhere to anything that the W3C tell us to do...and while were at it, why don't we all get some tips of old jakob... you obviously don't want the web to progress.... Don't assume we are promoting text only sites. Here's a site that is visually creative and yet valid code. http://www.csszengarden.com/ Vladdy 10-31-2003, 11:45 AM I do not want flash plug in because when I look for information on the web I want it fast. Flash only slows things down. If there is a site that depends on flash to deliver content I hit back button and go to a competitor. You think that the customer is some "suit" who signs your check. To you he is. But what both you and your "customer" fail to understand that a customer of the created web site is a person browsing the web looking for information (content). The root of the problem is that the "suit" who asks for a web site KNOWS the content being delivered and it certainly looks boring to him without eye-catching graphics. To a real customer, who is looking for information those graphics are more of a distraction. The web graphics do not need to be "stimulating" - their task is to help delivering the structure of site content. If the content of a web site is text (as opposed to images, sounds, movies) then a web site should be "text based". If you put it into the foundation of your web site by writing semantically meaningful markup, you can apply presentation specific to client device capabilities. pyro 10-31-2003, 11:59 AM Originally posted by zyex check out their portfolio... http://www.westonfl.org/ I checked out the first one you linked to... Looks like they don't know about margin: auto and text-align: center (for IE 5.x)... http://www.westonfl.org/leftframe.htm :rolleyes: http://www.westonfl.org/rightframe.htm :rolleyes: you obviously don't want the web to progress.... lol... You think the progress of the web is based on plugins and frames... How nice... zyex 10-31-2003, 12:21 PM yes, graphics are more of a distraction to me when i am buying a product online.....forget giving me image previews, of say an item of clothing.....just put something like.....cap for sale £15.00...that way i will know exactly what i am purchasing..... i want to buy a new mobile phone....just give me a brief text description of the phone and that'll do me....forget any 3d interactive demonstrations of how the phone works, and the features it has...they would only distract me wouldnt they... a site should be designed around the content that is going to be presented....if a site contains pages and pages of technical data, then it should be presented in an easy to find manner.....it doesn't mean that the design of the site needs to be poor, just because the site's main content is text..... one of the main things every client i have ever dealt with wants to do is continue their advertising / marketing strategy throughout their website....that is why so many websites have graphics and images...flash based content.....because the company wants the client to immediatly recognise their company branding.... next time is have a meeting with a client, i will say...forget the images, interactive content etc....it only distracts the user you say that if a site contains flash, then you immediatly navigate away from that site....that is your loss...if you like looking at static websites all day, that are still using technologies from yesteryear then go right ahead.....but in the next few years, you will only be looking at very few web sites...flash is here to stay..... i am personally inclined to navigate away from badly designed sites, or sites that look like they haven't been updated in the past 5 years... spufi 10-31-2003, 12:31 PM Originally posted by zyex one of the main things every client i have ever dealt with wants to do is continue their advertising / marketing strategy throughout their website....that is why so many websites have graphics and images...flash based content.....because the company wants the client to immediatly recognise their company branding.... Company branding isn't based on Flash. It's a recognisable image. zyex 10-31-2003, 12:36 PM ok, first off, my point was that some of the best web designers out there use frames... i don't go round validating other websites.....it must be hard to look at a website and then go validate it, just so that i can think "ha - those guys don't know what theyre doing cos it doesnt validate at the W3C, or that element doesn't work in version x.xx.xxx.xx of a browser..."...."they are using a CSS element that isn't support by netscape v.x.x.x so they don't know what theyr'e doing" the amount of people that actually use out of date browsers is less than 1 % of the population of the web....figure it out... Vladdy 10-31-2003, 12:45 PM Originally posted by zyex the amount of people that actually use out of date browsers is less than 1 % of the population of the web....figure it out... http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox23.html If "up to date" browsers are the ones with the latest version then only 68.5% of users have them... All your other arguments are as accurate.... :rolleyes: zyex 10-31-2003, 03:56 PM when i was referring to out of date browsers, i was referring to browsers that don't support features such as frames all my other arguments are inaccurate.....please explain... would you sit there and tell a client that you are not going to produce a website for them in flash, or featuring flash elements because YOU don't like it.....they would say ok......we will go somewhere else..... you will do really well in business... no one knows the clients product and the clients audience better than the client..... Vladdy 10-31-2003, 05:34 PM Once again you are confused. Browsers that do not support frames are not necessarily out of date. On contrary with web clients expanding to devices such as cell phones and PDAs there are new browsers that do not have frames support (nor flash support, and often windowed environment support) Also with Accessibility Laws expanding into the WWW, non graphical browsers with no frames support are emerging. Actually, in relation to frames, as it was already pointed out, there is no provision for frames in XML 1.1. Therefore current browsers support frames not as a future technology, but only for "backward compatibility" reasons. I have no problem educating clients in regard to what the current state of web technology is and what the current trends are. I tell them that if the web site is not accessible by all possible devices, they will be losing increasing market share as the number of web enabled cell phone and PDA users increases. Also I tell them that by making their site inaccessible they are asking for a potential lawsuit (and it would not take long before lawyers realize what kind of gold mine the big corporations with inaccessible web sites are). I never tell a client that I would not produce a flash web site, but I tell them that making two versions of a web site will at least double the cost without justifiable return on such investment. zyex 11-01-2003, 05:33 AM "I never tell a client that I would not produce a flash web site, but I tell them that making two versions of a web site will at least double the cost without justifiable return on such investment." how will producing a graphical and non-graphical website at least double the cost of a project? you think it takes as long to produce a non-graphic, static website as it does to produce one in flash? if you know how to use flash correctly, a simple script will produce a text-only version of the site...create a css style sheet to go with the text only version and voila, 2 versions of a site in less than a couple of hours.... if a clients browser does not meet the minimum speciifications for viewing the website, at least they have a scaled down version of the site where they can get all the relevant information that they need...if they want to view the site using all of the features the site utitlises, then provide them with a list of the minimum requirements that are needed to view that site....go down to your local computer shop, and pick up a game, or a software package and turn to the back....there will be a list of certain requirements that are needed to run that game or software.... the point is that as new technology evolves, so do the platforms for utilising that technology..... ok, the reasoning behind frames.....take a flash file of 50k....it makes far more common sense to stick that file in a place where it doesnt have to keep being reloaded, or check if it has been loaded already.....this will take extra processing at both the client and server side...when a user navigates through the site, and they navigate to a page whose content is 50k, thats all their browser needs to load, as oppose to 100k if you include all the navigation.... you yourself stated that you don't like waiting around for content to load......hence the reason for using frames.....can you suggest a better alternative? or do you just not like flash, which isn't a legitamite reason... also, flash, used properly can produce file sizes smaller than conventional images.... you mentioned accessibility laws expanding to the www, and companies being sued for their site not being accessible - the laws state that a site must provide reasonable access... without going into too much depth, a website needs to meet three prioritys..... the w3 site doesn't even meet them.....neither does the bobby website which can be used to test these....the point is that the people who set the guidelines can't even adhere to them....how many times do you read in the papers, or see on the news that an mp, or solicitor or judge or police officer has broken the law...i rest my case.... i am based in the uk, so the laws i have to abide to are different from those in the us...here, people don't try to take people to court and sue them for any reason they can,....you mentioned about lawyers realising a goldmine.....i think that you will only find cases of this in the us...here they would be laughed out of court... i would however be interested in discussing these problems, that we as designers and devlopers face....if everyone works together, we can make the web a far better place to live... :-) Paul Jr 11-01-2003, 11:27 AM Originally posted by zyex ...also, flash, used properly can produce file sizes smaller than conventional images.... I have to agree with him there. 2advanced.com is completely flash based. I mean, the whole site is just flash. And it loads faster for me, on a very slow 56K, than a lot of other nonflash based sites. webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved. |
|