Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Xhtml And Seo
Posted 30 March 2006 - 07:58 AM
This all does not make any sense to me. In the beginning I let the SEO company know what I was doing - and now that the site is done, they have come back and said I cannot use XHTML.
I'm a bit perturbed. Someone please shed some light on the subject for me. SO my choice is to remove the "/" but now have code that does not validate?
I don't understand why SEO and standards-compliant websites are two things that cannot go hand in hand?
Posted 30 March 2006 - 08:34 AM
As for "headers in the content", can you give an example?
Posted 30 March 2006 - 08:35 AM
I know the SEO company is not educated when it comes to code because most of the sites they develop don't even validate as proper HTML.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 08:56 AM
If a supposed SEO is saying there's a problem, it's because they're scared that you're adding legitimate semantic weight to page content that'll shift focus away from what they're doing - possibly because they're misusing Hx elements themselves.
Personally, I'd be questioning the competency of the SEO at this point ...
Posted 30 March 2006 - 09:24 AM
I'm establishing a hierarchy of content on a page using header tags ... I don't understand why this isn't allowable?
<h1> Primary Content</h1>
<p> Insert intro paragraph</p>
<h2> Secondary Content - Subheader</h2>
<p> insert paragraph </p>
<h3> Tertiary Content - Subheader </h3>
<p>insert paragraph / content</p>
Edited by Lin., 30 March 2006 - 09:29 AM.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 09:32 AM
Edit: You've answered the first question now, and that looks fine to me.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 10:02 AM
These folks don't understand XHTML, and they're apparently working to some kind of forumula that doesn't allow them to think outside the box. Well, actually, they're apparently not thinking at all, inside or outside the box. As jetboy says, they should be looking at those H1, H2, H3 tags as an opportunity.
Those are two really big red flags. Who knows what other gaps in their knowledge/imagination are lurking out there?
Posted 30 March 2006 - 10:18 AM
Though something may be the standard and may validate and be W3C compliant, this doesn’t necessarily mean that search engines have caught up with the technology. Most new web technology pertains to making web designers jobs easier as well as a web designer’s view of user experiences. Most of this is not relevant to current search engine spiders and can often be detrimental to the positioning of a web site – especially when targeting extremely competitive phrases.
I have no doubt that the spiders will be able to follow through the XHTML as I have seen proof that sites are indexed – However, without any significant search results. As of today, I wouldn’t personally recommend XHTML for this reason – until further evidence shows me otherwise. If you do proceed, it will simply be a matter of a wait and see process.
I have consulted with many SEO associates today to get other thoughts as well. Everyone that I spoke with expressed the same thoughts as mine own and everyone is also anxious to see how it turns out should you decide to go forth with the current plans.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 10:45 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if BT said that, but I bet it was a long time ago. Even in 2002, from WebmasterWorld:
"... as many have mentioned, there is the search engine spider aspect. We have no idea just how good, or how bad search engines are at parsing html. We do know, that they base their tools on the same standards documents that the browser manufactures do. That means, if a page validates, there is a near 100% chance of that page not being rejected by a search engine due to html problems."
Brett Tabke, May 16, 2002
That's fair use, right? And they're suggesting that that may *not* apply to XHTML. Bull.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 01:40 PM
that is simply and utterly one of the dumbest things an SEO company has ever said.
Get rid of that company as quickly as you can. They are bad, bad, bad news and obviously know nothing about websites, SEO or internet marketing. Dumb, dumb, idiots!
Posted 30 March 2006 - 01:49 PM
Posted 30 March 2006 - 02:41 PM
If anyone has any recommendations on a SEO company that charges less than $800 a month for on and offsite optimization maintenance (which is the insane amount we pay now), and can work with XHTML, let me know.
I think it's time we switched SEO companies.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 04:09 PM
You can feel free to post for a company in our contracting and subcontracting forum.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 04:27 PM
Jill, I will check out that forum, thanks.
Posted 30 March 2006 - 05:23 PM
Look for very happy customers of whichever company you choose. But any company that says xhtml is bad is one to definitely run from as fast as you can!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users