Re: CSS for positioning

[Jenn]

The idea is not to have a perfect solution to a given problem, but to
have the right problem in the first place.

Simple clear layouts that tolerate resizing of font and viewport and
don't have unnecessary Javascript usually result in pages that are
easier to make, much nicer to read, and are also better-looking if
you're good at that kind of design.

The difficulty may be just making that complicated enough for the boss
to understand.

Well.. some bosses don't want to know .. they just want fast results.

 

[Jenn]

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.

I learn all the time, but I'm not opposed to using older techniques that
work, too. Don't throw away the old techniques just because there are new
ones. I'll continue to learn as I work.

 

[Peter]

Your target customer can't find the site if it's not on google.



It is NOT a 'good point'. Please stop encouraging her ingorance.

NO search engine uses keywords.

Keywords 'within the page'? Thought ALL search engines do that.

 

[Peter]

What is important is good meaningful headings in the body text,
using words in the opening paragraphs of a page that are
appropriate to the website and quite natural but which are also
likely to be asked for in searches. Clients can place paid ads if
they want to get ahead of the pack, meta keywords don't much work
these days, Jonathan is right.

And don't forget the meta title and description. They are definitely
required.

 

[Peter]

"
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.

<snip>

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?

How about this:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/google-does-not-use-
keywords-meta-tag.html

 

[rf]

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

No I am not. Not at all.

But I am incapable of putting up with a proven bloody idiot.

As everybody else is beginning to say, stay back there in 1995 when you
apparently switched your brain off. The rest of us are quite happy in this
century *without* your stupid ideas polluting usenet.

<plonk>

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

And don't forget the meta title and description. They are definitely
required.

<title> ... </title> isn't a meta element; and the meta description,
though possibly helpful, is not required.

 

[freemont]

<plonk>

Be prepared to re-plonk at least twice.

(BT,DT)

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

rf writ:

Be prepared to re-plonk at least twice.

(BT,DT)

Don't you have the Multi-Plonk Extension??? LOL

 

[dorayme]

I will have to disagree with you on the meta keywords not working these
days...

That is fair enough. I have not conducted my own trials or
investigated the matter deeply, I am just going on trust from
what I have read and what some people here have said.

The fact is that I am sometimes a bit of a sucker, too soft
hearted and willing to be taken for a ride by other forceful
characters. I let them push me about a bit so that when the Final
Judgement Day comes, He will say,

"Now dorayme* you have been pushed around all your
life and have tried in vain to help others (though
I note that plain packaging for cigarettes is
going to finally become law soon in Australia and
that you advocated this over 20 years ago). So I
am going to operate 'The first shall be last and
the last first' algorithm that My Geeky Son mentioned in
passing in Galilee one day."

Bob is surely going to be my uncle then. Keywords, shmeewords,
what does it matter in the bigger scheme of things? <g>

 

[dorayme]

So... start with raw content. Then spruce it up.

And that means understanding (as best as it can be understood, it
is not a crystal clear idea) the ideal distinction between pure
HTML and CSS. A worthwhile and well founded idea.

 

[dorayme]

That would mean having a grid of items, all with the same width. What I
want however is a grid of items with variable widths and it seems that
flaot is not a good solution for this, i.e. float is not able to arrange
such thumbnails nicely.

It is if you *manage* them. I have not mentioned all the
management techniques you can bring to bear on this question. You
need to understand first how floats catch on other floats. There
is a page that tries to explain this:

<http://netweaver.com.au/floatHouse/page4.php>

Another movie using the HTML camera is owed to this site (after a
perspicacious point that was raised by rf ages ago). Maybe this
Xmas.

There are a number of ways that floats can "catch" or get blocked
in their natural tendencies. Once understood, you can arrange the
pics so that they do not "catch" and produce unsightly gaps.

Yes, if you do not want to manage things, that is understandable.
inline-block is the great alternative.

 

[Jenn]

Jenn, when you put your sig at the top of your posts, then when people
respond to the post EVERYTHING that you wrote disappears. You see, a
_good_ reader client interprets EVERYTHING below the sig as being PART
of the sig. So, when the user replies, the ENTIRE sig is dropped --
including everything that you wrote.

THAT is the reason that he asked you to stop doing that -- and he is
100% correct.

I didn't *add* my sig to the top .. it does that automatically when I don't
have OE quotefix opened. I simply didn't notice quotefix wasn't opened...

 

[dorayme]

Jenn, when you put your sig at the top of your posts, then when people
respond to the post EVERYTHING that you wrote disappears. You see, a
_good_ reader client interprets EVERYTHING below the sig as being PART
of the sig. So, when the user replies, the ENTIRE sig is dropped --
including everything that you wrote.

Maybe a smarter newsreader sees it as some sort of unlikely error
and ignores it. My newsreader did just this on a trial with one
of those rare posts where Jenn did this.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

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

How can you target a customer if they cannot find you?

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.

True, content is king, but, if Google cannot crawl the site, how is it
going to get to the other content? Important content could be on a page
that Google cannot reach.

Let's look at the following scenario:

1. Home page has information about the store, and a few key products.
The navigation is by javascript. White widgets are not on the first
page.
2. The meat of the site is different products on subsequent pages,
including white widgets. Google cannot get to the pages, so does not
index them.
3. Competitor A does not use javascript navigation, and his entire site
has been indexed.
4. White widgets become all the rage. Competitor A is going to get the
sales because his content was indexed, and available on search engines.

 

[Jenn]

How can you target a customer if they cannot find you?


True, content is king, but, if Google cannot crawl the site, how is it
going to get to the other content? Important content could be on a
page that Google cannot reach.

Let's look at the following scenario:

1. Home page has information about the store, and a few key products.
The navigation is by javascript. White widgets are not on the first
page.
2. The meat of the site is different products on subsequent pages,
including white widgets. Google cannot get to the pages, so does not
index them.
3. Competitor A does not use javascript navigation, and his entire
site has been indexed.
4. White widgets become all the rage. Competitor A is going to get
the sales because his content was indexed, and available on search
engines.

I was talking to the techs and they told me that Google will look at and
take into consideration the Meta Name keywords, but it doesn't index them...
Also, content that is brought in via code like AJAX boxes IS indexed by
google because the content is seen by google although it's displayed via
something like an AJAX box. They evidently feel that the Meta Name keywords
is still applicable as far as google goes, and they also feel that content
displayed as I said above is indexed by google and other search engines just
fine.

I have done a bit of research and there can be other methods of *hiding*
keywords on site pages so a search engine like google will index the page
even if it isn't indexing the meta name keywords, not the only method search
engines index sites, or the navigation is using a method google doesn't
like, as some have said with javascript navs, which is of course.

One method I found particularly interesting was inserting text with a small
font and the same color as the background within the page and insert
keywords into that text. At any rate, there are many ways to get pages
indexed and found by search engines.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I was talking to the techs

What techs? You spoke with humans at google?

and they told me that Google will look at and take into consideration
the Meta Name keywords, but it doesn't index them...

And google will penalize you if words in the meta keyword element are
*not* found in the content.

I have done a bit of research

Not much... lol

and there can be other methods of *hiding* keywords

If you get caught, you will be removed from the indexes.

One method I found particularly interesting was inserting text with a
small font and the same color as the background within the page and
insert keywords into that text.

You have "researched" old information. Google started reading colors
compared to background colors years ago. Yet another way to get
penalized and banned from the indexing.

You also didn't think about speech browsers, which would be boring the
blind people to death reading all your supposedly invisible "keywords."

At any rate, there are many ways to get pages indexed and found by
search engines.

Yes, and they all involve providing well-marked-up content - and
relevant inbound links from other sites (except link farms).

 

[Jenn]

What techs? You spoke with humans at google?

Techs I work with ......

And google will penalize you if words in the meta keyword element are
*not* found in the content.

On the site I work on these days ... that wouldn't be an issue because the
words in the meta keyword element are also found within the content.

Not much... lol

According to you?

If you get caught, you will be removed from the indexes.


You have "researched" old information. Google started reading colors
compared to background colors years ago. Yet another way to get
penalized and banned from the indexing.

You also didn't think about speech browsers, which would be boring the
blind people to death reading all your supposedly invisible
"keywords."

I also said I found it interesting. I find alot of information interesting.
It doesn't mean I participate in it or even would recommend it.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

And that means understanding (as best as it can be understood, it is not
a crystal clear idea) the ideal distinction between pure HTML and CSS. A
worthwhile and well founded idea.

One of the sites I'm involved with has content coming in from members of
a historical society. They always ask questions about colors and fonts,
and I tell them to forget all of that and pretend they are sitting an old
manual typerwriter. What they would have typed out in boring letters
back in the "golden era of typing" is exactly what I want.

Its easier for me to wrap <p>...</p> around everything than to degunk
whatever they want to give me.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Techs I work with ......

Ah yes. That's was I thought. Search engine experts.

On the site I work on these days ... that wouldn't be an issue
because the words in the meta keyword element are also found within
the content.

But since there is no benefit, why bother to bother with the meta
keywords?

According to you?

Of course. Though others reading here may agree with me.

I also said I found it interesting. I find alot of information
interesting. It doesn't mean I participate in it or even would
recommend it.

Then you should have added: "this doesn't work, I wouldn't use it, and
I don't recommend it."