Re: CSS for positioning

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

uh huh!! THAT's why I posted those particulat stats.... I wanted to
show the robot/spiders that have indexed my site, and yahoo is at the
top of the list .. NOT GOOGLE.

That is not the point of this sub-thread.

According to my reference, "after its competitor Google at 85.35% and
Yahoo at 6.15%," - it does not matter that your logs show more spider
hits from Yahoo. What matters is that 85% of people who use search
engines, use Google.

 

[Jenn]

That is not the point of this sub-thread.

According to my reference, "after its competitor Google at 85.35% and
Yahoo at 6.15%," - it does not matter that your logs show more spider
hits from Yahoo. What matters is that 85% of people who use search
engines, use Google.

sorry.. you're wrong... my sources show it as follows:

MSN Search Engine 64%
Google 9%
Baiduspider 9%
Google Adsense 4%

then the rest goes like this:
Miscellaneous
Ask.com
Yahoo
spbot
msbot
and so on up to 50 spiders/bots

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

sorry.. you're wrong... my sources show it as follows:

MSN Search Engine 64%
Google 9%
Baiduspider 9%
Google Adsense 4%

then the rest goes like this:
Miscellaneous
Ask.com
Yahoo
spbot
msbot
and so on up to 50 spiders/bots

Cite your reference.

 

[Jenn]

Cite your reference.

I really can't be specific except to say that is the search engine stats for
one gigantic website that I work on.... sooo .. while people who hit other
sites may find google to be in a higher percentage, it is not that way
across the board for all websites. MSN search engine directs more traffic
to this particular site than Google.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I really can't be specific except to say that is the search engine
stats for one gigantic website that I work on.... sooo .. while
people who hit other sites may find google to be in a higher
percentage, it is not that way across the board for all websites.
MSN search engine directs more traffic to this particular site than
Google.

You are then still citing "spiders/bots" hits. From your 'gigantic
website' stats, you have no way to determine which search engines are
the most popular among *people who surf.* Your stats are still
irrelevant.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

Obviously you didn't check any of mine...

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

You didn't check my sites.

(Hint: There is a extension for Firefox [only works under windows] that
has validation built in. )

 

[Jenn]

You are then still citing "spiders/bots" hits. From your 'gigantic
website' stats, you have no way to determine which search engines are
the most popular among *people who surf.* Your stats are still
irrelevant.

On the contrary ... real statistics of which search engines are actually
sending users to a website are very relevent. The notion that Google is the
be all and end all of search engines leads many people to a flawed
conclusion and they end up ignoring the multitude of other search engines
actually sending people to websites. While Google is used by alot of
people, what counts for the client is the actual search engines that WILL
point users to the clients website(s). To preach the gospel of Google alone
is not doing ones client any favors because it is a fact that if you were to
geo-target a specific area of the country you will find people who prefer
one search engine over another ... just as targeted areas you will find
people who prefer one ISP or another, and so on. If I am in a specific area
of the country where most of the users to a specific website would be using
Yahoo or MSN search engines over google, then I should take into
consideration that those search engines may well view keywords and indexing
differently. In addition to geo-targeting such statistics, it also should
be taken into consideration how a websites users will be gaining access to a
site. If the community involved is geared to retirement communities and you
can get stats on what browsers they prefer to use, their homepages, and even
their isps you can get a better idea on how to set up a website tailored to
the specific needs of the sought after clientele, and what sort of
advertising that client will need to get their clients to their site. I'd
say 90% of all hits to a website are due to print media , radio, and tv
advertising and the search engines just assist in a 10% capacity.

Google isn't the "God" search engine .. it' just averages on the whole more
people using it, but the byte out of the whole a webmaster may be looking to
attract may not use google as their primary search engine, therefore, the
stats will change and so should how that site is set up change.

 

[Jenn]

Obviously you didn't check any of mine...

I checked larger sites like msnbc.com, and cnn.com ... and others like it.

 

[Jenn]

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

You didn't check my sites.

(Hint: There is a extension for Firefox [only works under windows]
that has validation built in. )

as I told Jonathan Little when he said the same thing .. I tried larger
sites like msnbc.com and cnn.com and others that were similar.

 

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:

... [remarks of a non-personally wounding nature}

I am not a person inclined to use rude words, but you are trying my
patience with your stupidity.

And, of course, you have nothing really to do with the matter,
there is some guy with a gun to your head forcing you to reply
and engage with this lady and you greatly resent having to do

Hasn't she nymshifted three times now?

I haven't *nymshifted* 3 times ... I'll repeat for you since you have
comprehension issues.... I have 3 computers.... 2 of them I use every day,
and the 3rd (my laptop) I use less often, and all 3 I use to access my
usenet ngs.

 

[Jenn]

Your "sources"? What the **** drugs are you on?


Ahahahahahahahahaha. Microsoft would cream their pants for 1/10th that
share of the search market.

{{{{{{yawn}}}}}

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

On the contrary ...

<snip more irrelevant drivel>

<sigh>

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Rob W. wrote:
Op 11-5-2010 19:33, Jenn schreef:


Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it as
being practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing dynamic
content, imo.


Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS.

You should run your replies through a validator.

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

You didn't check my sites.

(Hint: There is a extension for Firefox [only works under windows]
that has validation built in. )

as I told Jonathan Little when he said the same thing .. I tried larger
sites like msnbc.com and cnn.com and others that were similar.

My main site has 661 unique pages the last time I updated my search
index, how frigg'n bif does a site have to be to merit in your mind? And
anyway your said "I did and haven't found *one* site that had no errors"
(emphasis mine)

Maybe dorayme will find some precious "charm" in your posts, but to
anyone with any technical expertize will recognize that your statements
are hardly grounded in reality. Keep your little fantasy, you should
sojourn to Sweden and join Luigi. Like minds.

 

[Rob W.]

Op 13-5-2010 16:15, Jenn schreef:

They are highly dynamic sites that cater to millions of viewers. If those
millions of viewers did not like the quality of the product they would go
elsewhere.

We are not discussing the quality of their information or the price of
their products.
We're talking about coding, about validation and about search engines.
This is about the stuff that viewers don't see.

A big part of this thread is about making a website in such a way that
- it's easily maintainable (separation of content en presentation)
- it's stable, predictable and effective (using standards, using
javascript *not* to generate content but only in a supportive way).


Personally I don't do much posting in this ng,
because I'm here to learn. I know that the minute I would submit a URL
of one of my sites, I could expect comments.
Yes, some of it is a little harsh, but it's almost always to the point.
And some of it may not be clear at first sight, but it doesn't hurt to
think about what they offer and try to figure it out on your own.

I get the impression that you're a little fast with your answers
and a lot of the time you miss the point.

 

[Jenn]

On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:24:31 -0500, Jenn wrote:

Rob W. wrote:
Op 11-5-2010 19:33, Jenn schreef:


Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it
as being practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing
dynamic content, imo.


Gigantic sites can be made with a standards-compliant CMS.

You should run your replies through a validator.

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

You didn't check my sites.

(Hint: There is a extension for Firefox [only works under windows]
that has validation built in. )

as I told Jonathan Little when he said the same thing .. I tried
larger sites like msnbc.com and cnn.com and others that were similar.

My main site has 661 unique pages the last time I updated my search
index, how frigg'n bif does a site have to be to merit in your mind?
And anyway your said "I did and haven't found *one* site that had no
errors" (emphasis mine)

While your site is very nice, Jonathan, it's still a smaller site compared
to the ones I looked at that are major websites .... no negative intent was
insinuated against your site.

 

[Jenn]

<snip more irrelevant drivel>

<sigh>

Have you ever heard of geo-targeting?

 

[Rob W.]

Op 13-5-2010 16:22, Jenn schreef:

no .. they were considered in Vogue/cool, etc.

Let me refrase that: They were not considered un-healthy.

Some people were warning against the use of tobacco even at the
beginning of the last century. They were probably ignored because the
bad effects of tobacco were not widely known or even acknowledged.

Today we know better.

We also know better where it concerns the use of frames, tables for
layout, pixel-perfect layouts, use of Xhtml etc etc.
But you have to appreciate that there are new techniques and new
technology that makes these things out-dated.

You very consistently ignore this and you keep defending what you
learned in the Nineties and have used ever since.

 

[Jenn]

Op 13-5-2010 16:15, Jenn schreef:

We are not discussing the quality of their information or the price of
their products.
We're talking about coding, about validation and about search engines.
This is about the stuff that viewers don't see.

A website is not all about the validation and search engines, and if all a
webmaster thinks about is that, they will only be targeting a small portion
of the people who might be valid customers for a site.

A big part of this thread is about making a website in such a way that
- it's easily maintainable (separation of content en presentation)
- it's stable, predictable and effective (using standards, using
javascript *not* to generate content but only in a supportive way).

Yes.. I realize that... but I am adding an additional dimension to this
topic, which is also important. Despite the standards that some here wish
to follow, I am providing examples of very large sites that don't follow
those standards, yet, they have a very huge following as far as viewers who
use their site, so, while the standard you speak of may be a goal to reach
for, that goal is obviously not practically implemented by a majority in the
industry.

Personally I don't do much posting in this ng,
because I'm here to learn. I know that the minute I would submit a URL
of one of my sites, I could expect comments.
Yes, some of it is a little harsh, but it's almost always to the
point. And some of it may not be clear at first sight, but it doesn't
hurt to think about what they offer and try to figure it out on your
own.

It also doesn't hurt for the critics here to consider a point of view other
than their own. I value interaction with others and their points of view
when it is presented to me in a respectful manner. I even may have ideas
they have not considered and possible help them. It is no fun to solely be
a *taker* with any group.. likewise .. it is no fun to be put in the
position where people feel they are the ones who should be teaching you
simply because they believe their own press. I have little patience for
people who treat others badly simply because they have a different point of
view than the status quo.

I get the impression that you're a little fast with your answers
and a lot of the time you miss the point.

Rarely do I miss a straight out point someone is wanting to make... I will
miss a point if it's some sort of private joke, however.

 

[Rob W.]

Op 13-5-2010 16:24, Jenn schreef:

I did and haven't found one site that had no errors.

Uhm....

I am missing the answer where you try to invalidate my remark about
using a standards-compliant CMS.