Affordable web design

[Jack Jeffers]

We are a professional web design agency. We charge FREELANCE fees for the high quality designs. We are employees owned company. Most of us are web designer and website developers with one SEO expert.

visit our site at http://www.websitesdepot.com

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

We are a professional web design spammer. We charge VERYHIGH fees for
the low quality designs. We are employees owned company. Most of us are
web designer and website spammers with one SEO expert.

visit our site at hxxp://www.websitesdepot.com

Hey spammer, come back after you've fixed all your errors.

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http:/%
2Fwww.websitesdepot.com%2F>

"Errors found while checking this document as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Result: 24 Errors"

(and Transitional? A child could design an error-free Transitional page)

<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?
profile=css21&warning=0&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.websitesdepot.com%2F>

"Sorry! We found the following errors (23)"

You also need to learn how to use apostrophes, how to distinguish between
singular and plural, and how to optimize images for the web.

 

[dorayme]

Jack Jeffers wrote:
....

Hey

I *knew* you would be along asa I saw the OP's post! <g>

 

[Brian Cryer]

We are a professional web design agency. We charge FREELANCE fees for the
high quality designs. We are employees owned company. Most of us are web
designer and website developers with one SEO expert.

Two words of advice:
1. You probably ought to recruit a professional proof reader to join your
team.
2. Look before you post - if you had then you would be aware that posts such
as yours are not welcome here.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I *knew* you would be along asa I saw the OP's post! <g>

It was my shift. ;-)

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Two words of advice:
1. You probably ought to recruit a professional proof reader to join your team.
2. Look before you post - if you had then you would be aware that posts
such as yours are not welcome here.

Not welcome to regular readers, certainly. But he's probably assuming
that there are a large number of casual lurkers who come here looking
for posts like his. "Alan_Smith" may be just the name of a robot, in
which case we don't need to wonder why it keeps coming back with
garbage advice without even managing to get the subject line properly
written ("Why the use of HTML is good for create a web page?"); but if
it's a human being it presumably gets enough replies to make it worth
while.

 

[Tim W]

Not welcome to regular readers, certainly. But he's probably assuming
that there are a large number of casual lurkers who come here looking
for posts like his. "Alan_Smith" may be just the name of a robot, in
which case we don't need to wonder why it keeps coming back with garbage
advice without even managing to get the subject line properly written
("Why the use of HTML is good for create a web page?"); but if it's a
human being it presumably gets enough replies to make it worth while.

I don't think so. The main purpose of these posts is to plant links in
the hope of rising up the search engine rankings. Sometimes it is even
more blatant - you know when there is no content to the post or the
content is just keyword garbage.

Tim w

Itchy scalp? Embarassing Flaky Dandruff?
http://www.hairandscalpclinic.net

 

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I don't think so. The main purpose of these posts is to plant links in
the hope of rising up the search engine rankings.

Probably you're right, so we should firmly resist the temptation to
click on the links provided. Or maybe one competent person --
Beauregard, say, or Dorayme -- could be licensed to follow the link and
report back, and everyone else should refrain. One click isn't going to
do much for the ranking.

 

[Tim W]

Probably you're right, so we should firmly resist the temptation to
click on the links provided. Or maybe one competent person --
Beauregard, say, or Dorayme -- could be licensed to follow the link and
report back, and everyone else should refrain. One click isn't going to
do much for the ranking.

iiuc it doesn't matter if you click on it or not, that makes no
diference to the ranking of the site. The google spider ranks a site by
counting incoming links. It asseses the value of the link by secret
methods which we can only guess at but it isn't able to know if the link
has been clicked or not nor how many times.

Beauregard's strange hobby of running crappy comercial sites through a
validator may be eccentric but it is quite harmless.

Tim W

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Beauregard's strange hobby of running crappy comercial sites through a
validator may be eccentric but it is quite harmless.

I suppose it is just relaxing to poke a bit of fun at the spammers...

 

[Norman Peelman]

Probably you're right, so we should firmly resist the temptation to
click on the links provided.

We should firmly resist in replying at all...

Or maybe one competent person --

Beauregard, say, or Dorayme -- could be licensed to follow the link and
report back, and everyone else should refrain. One click isn't going to
do much for the ranking.

That would be a full time job... just ignore these posts altogether.

 

[Brian Cryer]

iiuc it doesn't matter if you click on it or not, that makes no diference
to the ranking of the site. The google spider ranks a site by counting
incoming links. It asseses the value of the link by secret methods which
we can only guess at but it isn't able to know if the link has been
clicked or not nor how many times.

Beauregard's strange hobby of running crappy comercial sites through a
validator may be eccentric but it is quite harmless.

Be that as it may, running GOOD sites through the validator can be very
useful - because if you are unlucky (and I was once) an error in your markup
may stop a bot from crawling most of the page even though it renders fine in
the browser.

It's also not a bad way of seeing if a web design company know their stuff -
if there are lots of errors then avoid.

 

[dorayme]

running GOOD sites through the validator can be very
useful - because if you are unlucky (and I was once) an error in your markup
may stop a bot from crawling most of the page even though it renders fine in
the browser.

It's also not a bad way of seeing if a web design company know their stuff -
if there are lots of errors then avoid.

If a company makes websites that look nice and are good to use for the
majority of people, the number of validator reported mistakes is a
less important criterion, of course, than their individual importance
(errors are not all equal).

In reality, a company that makes validator error prone sites can and
do well if the consequences of their errors go largely unnoticed by
the regular visitors and especially the site owners.

The number of formal mistakes is hardly a really useful criterion for
a website owner who has little knowledge of the nuts and bolts (hence
their need to get someone else to make the site) because such people
have no sense of what is important.

Those who get sites made should, I agree, note validator reports. As a
quick cluefulness indicator. But the most important thing they should
do afterwards is stress test the sites, in different browsers, OS's,
pretending reasonable enough variations in eyesight (expressed in text
size settings at least). They should look at the logicality of the
navigation system etc. All the things that escape formal validators.