Re: CSS for positioning

[freemont]

In addition to this text below.. there is conflicting information as to
how effective keywords are..

How many times are you going to post the same junk? And how many times
are you going to post with your damn sig at the top of the article before
you realize what you're doing?

 

[rf]

Try validating these sites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/
www.tvguide.com/
www.foxnews.com/
www.yahoo.com/
www.nbclosangeles.com/
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.msnbc.com
www.latimes.com/
http://www.cnn.com/
www.usatoday.com/
http://cbs.com/

I ran all of these sites through the validator and none were perfect, yet
they are found by google very easily, and from the looks of their code
they are using javascript and in some cases AJAX boxes to call up content.
Why is it they do this if best practices dictate perfect code and no
javascript to call up content?

Are you a bloody troll, or what?

 

[rf]

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.

I'll answer the question I asked a couple of minutes ago.

Yes, you obviously are a bloody troll.

 

[rf]

Google is not the most important visitor to your website... your target
customer is.

Google will adapt and crawl your site just fine if you remember to include
keywords within your page and not just in the meta tag.

NOT IF IT CAN'T FIND THE BLOODY PAGES IN THE SITE!




Most definately a troll.

A pretty bloody stupid one, at that.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Here are a few from a current google search.. these sites aren't any of
what you said above.
http://www.ors.utah.gov/best_viewed.htm

Best viewed with NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR? Yup, this fits into category #1.

http://www.ece.unm.edu/csc/index.htm

Best viewed with IE6 or newer? Yup, once again category #1

http://www.floridadisaster.org/SiteView.htm

Hmm.. modern(ish) web site done to a particular browser?
Still using HTML comments <!-- --> inside of script and style elements?
Yup, cargo-cult coding. Those haven't been needed in well over a
decade. (Hint, I think Netscape 2 was the last browser to need them.
People who know what they are doing don't put them in.)

Javascript patch to fix NS4? Either cargo-cult or a carry over from
ancient times.

http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx (see footer text)

Oh come on... Microsoft wanting you to use IE? One example isn't any of
my comments above ... but its still /hardly/ a ringing endorsement... its
a sodding add.

http://thegolflockertv.com/index.php/the-news/74-firefox

And must have been just incompetence on behalf of the web designers.
(The reason I'm saying that is because the site views under IE ... so I
figure even they realized they had someone bad going on there and fixed
it, just never updated the news release.)


I'm not going to play tit-for-tat across the entire internet, but thank
you for providing me with such exceptional examples of why any site that
says 'best viewed with' is a sodding bad design.

I'm not saying they aren't out there... I'm saying they shouldn't be.

 

[Jenn]

It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or possibly
dwindling interest in presenting information to you.

That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present on
their page. What a joke.

So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake oil to
suckers.

Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you, ok?

Win? I can't find any definitive information on the subject that set's it
in stone one way or another, and links provided to me by other people such
as beauregard even present conflicting information to his own argument.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Jenn writ:

It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or
possibly dwindling interest in presenting information to you.

That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present
on their page. What a joke.

So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake
oil to suckers.

Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you,
ok?

Win? I can't find any definitive information on the subject that
set's [sic] it in stone one way or another, and links provided to me
by other people such as beauregard even present conflicting
information to his own argument.

You quoted, from above: "Webmasters flooded it with every keyword they
could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to eventually
render this tag worthless."

What part of *worthless* is too difficult for you to understand? Why is
it you continue to debate on topics you don't know anything about?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Stop adding your signature to the top of your posts.

 

[Jenn]

Best viewed with NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR? Yup, this fits into category #1.


Best viewed with IE6 or newer? Yup, once again category #1


Hmm.. modern(ish) web site done to a particular browser?
Still using HTML comments <!-- --> inside of script and style elements?
Yup, cargo-cult coding. Those haven't been needed in well over a
decade. (Hint, I think Netscape 2 was the last browser to need them.
People who know what they are doing don't put them in.)

Javascript patch to fix NS4? Either cargo-cult or a carry over from
ancient times.


Oh come on... Microsoft wanting you to use IE? One example isn't any of
my comments above ... but its still /hardly/ a ringing endorsement... its
a sodding add.


And must have been just incompetence on behalf of the web designers.
(The reason I'm saying that is because the site views under IE ... so I
figure even they realized they had someone bad going on there and fixed
it, just never updated the news release.)


I'm not going to play tit-for-tat across the entire internet, but thank
you for providing me with such exceptional examples of why any site that
says 'best viewed with' is a sodding bad design.

I'm not saying they aren't out there... I'm saying they shouldn't be.

It's all just your opinion tho... that is the issue. LOT's of people are
on the other side of this issue. You say it should be one way, they do it
another and are happy with it. Who's says you are right and they are wrong,
or vice versa?

 

[Jenn]

How many times are you going to post the same junk?

I suppose until I get the idea across.

 

[Jenn]

Are you a bloody troll, or what?

Have mercy ... I'm showing you that there are many sites that do exactly
what you say is not a good practice, and they aren't 5 n dime websites,
either. Some of you attempt to make what I'm saying as if I have to be an
idiot to say it to begin with, and I'm providing proof on why I say the
things I'm saying.. and then you call me a troll?

Look at their code. I looked.

 

[Jenn]

I'll answer the question I asked a couple of minutes ago.

Yes, you obviously are a bloody troll.

Are you incapable of having a discussion with someone who has a different
point of view from you without resorting to derogatory remarks?

 

[Jenn]

Jenn writ:
This link was provided by beauregard...
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html Meta Keywords:
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement"> The Keyword
tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to ignore
it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other
search engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider
the tag if it has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should
have a limited number of keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a
good range.

It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or
possibly dwindling interest in presenting information to you.

That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present
on their page. What a joke.

So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake
oil to suckers.

Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you,
ok?

Win? I can't find any definitive information on the subject that
set's [sic] it in stone one way or another, and links provided to me
by other people such as beauregard even present conflicting
information to his own argument.

You quoted, from above: "Webmasters flooded it with every keyword they
could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to eventually
render this tag worthless."

What part of *worthless* is too difficult for you to understand? Why is
it you continue to debate on topics you don't know anything about?

Does this text below that comment mean anything at all?

 

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:

Stop adding your signature to the top of your posts.

Oh go blow it out your ear .... said with the kindest of intentions...

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

"Jeremy J Starcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message

It's all just your opinion tho... that is the issue. LOT's of people
are on the other side of this issue. You say it should be one way, they
do it another and are happy with it. Who's says you are right and they
are wrong, or vice versa?

M'Lady, this will be my last post on this subject.

Who is to say that I am right?
The W3C.
The legal requirements of the ADA.


But truthfully ... "right" has never been the primary goal of my
discussion.

When I follow the latest "best design" practices, using the latest tools
at my fingertips, including HTML 4.01 strict validation, CSS validation,
etc, I have found the following things to be true:

1) My web pages are easier to design

2) They are easier to adapt to a clients desires. I can 'reskin' a fully
CSS website in minutes or even seconds.

3) My pages are fully ADA compliant.

4) My web pages do not do something expected in new environments. When
I load my pages on a smart phone, I don't have to worry "if they will
look OK." They will. If they are printed, I don't have to worry if they
will fit the boundaries of the page. They will.

As I said in the first post I made to you: "The Learning Never Stops."

You have chosen to stop learning. You have chosen to do things as you
did in 1995.

You have a niche for yourself right now, but should you ever loose that
niche, you'll find that the world has moved on.

You have the right to continue to do things as you are. You have the
right to continue to ignore validation, to prefer table design over a
better flowing CSS. You have the right to work three times harder than
you need to for the same result.

Very well.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Have mercy ... I'm showing you that there are many sites that do
exactly what you say is not a good practice, and they aren't 5 n dime
websites, either.

We all know that.

Some of you attempt to make what I'm saying as if I have to be an
idiot to say it to begin with, and I'm providing proof on why I say
the things I'm saying.. and then you call me a troll?

There are more web sites than there are people in China. Or people on
the whole planet maybe. Most of them have terrible code. Just because
someone else writes terrible code is no excuse for the rest of us to
follow like lemmings.

Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you have
no experience.

Look at their code. I looked.

Yes, they are ugly. So what? It isn't an excuse to write ugly code
yourself -- once someone has told you it's ugly.

Does it seem funny to you that not a single person in this group, other
than dorayme, has agreed with any of your arguments?

 

[Neredbojias]

Hehehe... slow down! ;-)

Oh crap. It's just not my day.

http://www.neredbojias.net/sgs.html

 

[Jenn]

OK, but you still might as well avoid gratuitous use of it (which I'm
not saying that photo gallery necessarily was-- I didn't look at it).

Just think of the electricity you'll save.

I don't really like js all that much myself, but it serves a purpose with
some needs the management wants.. so I use it because that's what they want.

 

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:

There are more web sites than there are people in China. Or people on
the whole planet maybe. Most of them have terrible code. Just because
someone else writes terrible code is no excuse for the rest of us to
follow like lemmings.

Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you
have no experience.

I do learn every day. I simply don't see a need to validate pages when no on
I know of but the people here do it. Perhaps, some point in the future I may
change my mind, but not right now.

Yes, they are ugly. So what? It isn't an excuse to write ugly code
yourself -- once someone has told you it's ugly.

Does it seem funny to you that not a single person in this group,
other than dorayme, has agreed with any of your arguments?

Why's it ugly code? And.. btw .. dorayme doesn't necessarily agree with
everything I say.. she is just being a better communicator with me, and
wants some of you to be better communicators, too.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I do learn every day. I simply don't see a need to validate pages
when no on I know of but the people here do it. Perhaps, some point
in the future I may change my mind, but not right now.

Please feel free to continue in your 1995 mode, while much of the rest
of the world evolves. Just don't attempt to stifle the learning process
of others who wish to learn. Some newbie might find your posts and think
it is okay to do what you do, when it isn't.

Why's it ugly code?

You won't understand.

And.. btw .. dorayme doesn't necessarily agree with everything I say..
she is just being a better communicator with me, and wants some of
you to be better communicators, too.

I guess she feels sorry for you.