7 replies to this topic

[azraelmustdye]

I've noticed a unusual trend among SEOs and web designers shucking good CSS tableless designs with all sorts of size, position and format tags. The sites are soooooo 1996. Only difference with the old ways is that they still keep extensive stylesheets...

I assume that the reason for this hell on designer trend is for one of the following reasons:
a) an attempt to increase the html-to-text ratio
billable hours, now and forever
c) a lack of CSS understanding

So, is there value in revisiting the 90's in terms of SE algorithms? Any proof one way or the other? My instinct tells me that following the pack, since so many articles encourage CSS to gain better SE listings, is reason to consider the possibilty that higher code-to-text is now a favorable approach to web design even if it means less control of our code. What do you think?

[qwerty]

We've discussed this a few times. I don't believe that CSS helps in rankings at all. I don't believe it has any effect on them.

However, there are so many other reasons to use it: cross-browser compatibility, page size, load time, maintenance...

[lisah]

I'd had so many people tell me to ditch tables and try a CSS layout that for the last site I did I actually gave it a go. Whether I got it right or not I can't say but it doesn't appear to have hurt the way the page ranks in any way (although I supose to test this I should recreate the site in tables). Personally I think it's a matter of preference and what you intend to do with the design. But maybe someone can prove me wrong on that one.

[Randy]

Welcome lisah !

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. I use CSS on all of my sites, but only because it makes my life a little easier on the design/layout side of things. I've never seen any ranking advantages or disadvantages of either choice.

[seharness]

Hello, I have taken on css to get away from nested tables. I find that the css controlled sites are a real pain to get the IE hacks in place so that they display consistently on IE and FF. The main improvement that I see is that the files are 60% smaller. This 60% comes from redesigning a 1998 site using css and 1 or 2 tables, eliminating the depreciated tags.

My feeling is that smaller, faster and w3c validated html get you higher rankings. Higher quality = higher rankings. But it is hard to say as these sites got optimized and remade with css at the same time. So it may just be the optimization and not the css?

[Scottie]

So it may just be the optimization and not the css?

I would say that is probably right.

[Jill]

I've noticed a unusual trend among SEOs and web designers shucking good CSS tableless designs with all sorts of size, position and format tags.

Are you saying that some SEOs are taking good tableless CSS sites and putting all the tables and stuff back in?

If so, then those SEOs are just plain dumb.

[linux_lover]

I'm not touching that one with a 50 foot bargepole...

Lets just say I use both... and theres nothing wrong with that.