90 replies to this topic

[Lin.]

Recently, I redesigned a website for our company that is written in XHTML 1.0Transitional/CSS, and have made my best attempt at making the code semantically correct. I told the SEO company I would be doing this, but now that the site is almost complete when it comes to code, I was told that the site cannot be in XHTML because of the extra "/" in the meta tags. Plus, I am not allowed to use headers in the content because this confuses spiders?

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?

[jetboy]

No, the XHTML notation certainly isn't a problem for search engine spiders. Don't assume that just because someone has an idea of how to optimize a site, that they have a clue how to code one!

As for "headers in the content", can you give an example?

[Lin.]

I cannot use H1, H2, H3 and H4 in the content to establish a hierarchy.

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.

[jetboy]

There's no reason why you shouldn't be using Hx headings, and many reasons why you should.

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 ...

[Lin.]

These are the SEO company's comments on heading tags:

In regards to the heading tags, this may be standard "design" practice but having unimportant areas of the page in headings, can and will affect search engine results.  It is fine to specify the "steps" as a specific class in the CSS so that you can easily manipulate the styles but the search engines will place a heavy role on heading tags, which is why they should not be used for this purpose.  Including insignficant areas of the page in headings will de-emphasize more important areas.

I'm establishing a hierarchy of content on a page using header tags ... I don't understand why this isn't allowable?

For example:
<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.

[jetboy]

Well, are you putting 'insignificant' content into Hx tags, or are you putting your headings in them? Ideally, they'd be leveraged to incorporate keywords for SEO purposes. Why doesn't your SEO consider this an opportunity to do so?

Edit: You've answered the first question now, and that looks fine to me.

[torka]

Hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but personally, I'd be looking for a new SEO company.

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?

My YMMV

--Torka

[Lin.]

This is my original response from the SEO company in re: XHTML:

We have researched this in great detail in the past, and from what I have read today, I am still in about the same position as Brett Tabke (well known and respected in the SEO industry).  The technology is so new that it is unclear yet as to how the search engine spiders are viewing XHTML and I have yet to find a site in the top results for any keyword phrase with any significance, which has fully implemented XHTML. (If you know of one, please feel free to send it along).



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.

[jetboy]

That's just spreading FUD, and you need to bin these clowns.

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.

[Jill]

Recently, I redesigned a website for our company that is written in XHTML 1.0Transitional/CSS, and have made my best attempt at making the code semantically correct. I told the SEO company I would be doing this, but now that the site is almost complete when it comes to code, I was told that the site cannot be in XHTML because of the extra "/" in the meta tags. Plus, I am not allowed to use headers in the content because this confuses spiders?

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!

[GBRD]

Nearly every website that I create is coded in XHTML. I also like to upgrade sites that I am optimizing to XHTML. XHTML 1.x offers a streamlined and semantically rich framework that allows very clear document architecture to be established. I find it to be ideal for optimization purposes.

[Lin.]

Wow, thanks guys for your responses. I am not sure what to do at this point. We do have high rankings in the search engines and my boss does not want to lose any of them.

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.

[Jill]

Well at that price, it's no surprise you have a company that doesn't know squat about design and SEO!

You can feel free to post for a company in our contracting and subcontracting forum.

[Lin.]

Is that cheaper than normal? What is the price range to normally expect for monthly maintenance?

Jill, I will check out that forum, thanks.

[Jill]

There's no price range, it depends on the company. The really great SEOs are so busy that they charge whatever they want, and it's not cheap. Others may be cheaper. You may or may not get what you pay for.

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!