Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!


Sponsored Content

 

 
 

Photo
- - - - -

Spidering Empty Cells ?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Dex

Dex

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 26 May 2005 - 11:12 AM

I think I read somewhere, that it's more spider friendly to have   in empty cells in tables - is that right please?

#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 5,881 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 May 2005 - 11:45 AM

Well I must say that's a new one.

#3 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,288 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 26 May 2005 - 11:50 AM

What Chris, in his subtle way, means tongue.gif is that a search engine really doesn't care whether it sees a space or nothing at all. It's still nothing.

However, if you leave empty table cells empty (assuming you're using the table for layout purposes), rather than placing a non-breaking space in them, you may find that some browsers treat those cells in one way, and some browsers treat them differently. So be sure to test your layout across as many browsers you can get your hands on. Either that, or start using CSS for layout instead of tables smile.gif

#4 jeffroyit

jeffroyit

    HR 2

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 26 May 2005 - 12:07 PM

hmm, css instead of tables yuk.gif

about empy cells: yes, it is better to use nbsp for rendering purposes. spiders still don't care about it

#5 Dex

Dex

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 26 May 2005 - 12:12 PM

Many thanks Qwerty and Chris, I didn't really explain that properly before ;-(

I thought I read somewhere, that if, for example, you had:

<table>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<th> </th>
<td>sample text - sample text - sample text</td>
<th></th>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>

Because the 1st cells are empty, the spider gets stuck, and can't get to the sample text, but in the following table, because the 1st cells are empty of any 'real text', *but*, not actually 'empty' the spider carries on going through the cells:

<table>
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<th>&nbsp;</th>
<td>sample text - sample text - sample text</td>
<th>&nbsp;</th>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>

Is that about right ?

#6 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 5,881 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 May 2005 - 12:16 PM

no

#7 Raphael

Raphael

    The Limey Cowboy

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • Location:New England

Posted 27 May 2005 - 07:04 AM

Spiders don't get "stuck" inside HTML. They may get caught in recursive link loops, but they don't get stuck inside HTML any more than any browser would get "stuck" inside HTML - And the spiders have an advantage over the browsers. They don't have to render the pages, so they don't even care whether your HTML is well formed or compliant or not. They just read the code, and store anything that's not an HTML tag.

#8 Dex

Dex

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 27 May 2005 - 08:26 AM

Many thanks for the info - I obviously got the wrong details from somewhere.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users