| LED Digest 2463: W3C Standards and SEO |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom www.GetWebContent.com/LED : the LED's Key Sponsor The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. August 3, 2007 Issue no. 2462 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Google Competing for SEO/M Clients ==-- ~ Jeff Hinds "Grant has a good point and I'm curious..." --== SEO and Web Standards ==-- ~ Shari Thurow "I haven't met a Web standards evangelist who I would consider a search expert." ~ Lee Roberts "...the subject of SEO v. W3C Standards is a confusing mix of opinions." --== The Hard Sell of 'Free' ==-- ~ Will Bontrager "...the recipient's perceived value of the thing might be a lot different..." ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Jeff Hinds Subject: Google competition > I recently lost out on a bid to handle a current client's > video production and search marketing campaign. > The company who won the bid? Google. - Grant Crowell, LED Digest 2460 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1868/190/ Grant has a good point and I'm curious if that's the only conflict of interest Google has. David Wallace of SearchRank.com is reporting that when he followed up with a business who requested a proposal the contact said that someone at Google said that "Google" themselves would optimize their site for nothing - no initial investment, no set up costs, free. Jeff Hinds http://suntzuseo.com <Moderator Comment> Here's a discussion about Grant's post on Sphinn: http://sphinn.com/story/1843 There's a lot to this (on the surface anyway), would be interesting to find some more details here. What's Google's plan? To become the Web's SEO/M provider? Not sure how that would work. -Adam ============ Sponsor Message =========== Ever wonder why Presidents and board chairmen hire professional writers to craft their speeches? Because they're usually trying to sell something, be it a new federal program or a lame excuse for a lousy fourth quarter. You're in sales, too. Online sales. Your site needs words that sell, power words. http://GetWebContent.com/LED words. ============ Sponsor Message =========== -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Shari Thurow Subject: SEO standards > I constantly read SEO's disclaiming web standards > and its relative importance to SEO. Considering, I'll > toss in my 2 cents into the discussion... - Al Toman, LED Digest 2461 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1870/190/ Hi all- This is in response to Al Toman's well-written post on SEO and Web standards. I have spoken many times at conferences about this topic. Maybe I can answer some of his questions. First and foremost, I do understand what he is trying to communicate. Yes, as a developer, I certainly do comply to Web standards (clean code, etc.) That's the point I believe he was trying to communicate. The reason for his confusion, I believe, is the marketing hype surrounding Web standards. I will give an example to hopefully illustrate my point. First, Web standards evangelists are evangelists. They are rather blind to their own conclusions. They want people to subscribe to their own standards so badly that they often cite data that only supports their conclusions, such as some usability data. Many of them make blanket statements such as: "Sites that are Web standards compliant rank better than sites that are not Web standards compliant." Well, not true. Many, many sites rank well, receive qualified search engine traffic, convert, and have been usability tested and validated. I see it happen all of the time. Furthermore, I haven't met a Web standards evangelist who I would consider a search expert. My humble apologies if that sounds slightly arrogant, but it is how I feel and my professional experience. I have met more SEO professionals that understand and implement Web standards than Web standards evangelists who understand and implement SEO. I attend Web standards panels at conferences. I take classes on Web standards. Without fail, I hear incredible bs about SEO from these "experts" and just wish I had a mute button to stop them from propagating misinformation about the information retrieval industry. I am not insulting Al as I have never met him. I am only speaking of my experience. Finally, I also haven't met a Web standards evangelist who is also a usability professional, and that is the thing that irritates me the most. I am tired of listening to the evangelists say: change everything to CSS-formatted text when usability test after usability test after usability test confirms that users USE (emphasis mine) and prefer a combination of graphic images and CSS-formatted text. Web analytics data confirms it. Sales conversions confirm it. It's the blanket statements that Web standards evangelists make that are cause for many SEO professionals to want to press the mute button. It's not that we don't understand and utilize Web standards. We use them when we need to and when it is convenient (as many pages convert well without Web standards compliance and there are other priorities). I have to take my blinders off for SEO and Web development during the usability testing process, among other things, because I get direct user feedback and great data. I wish Web standards evangelists would take their blinders off as well. If I can humble myself and re-evaluate my conclusions, so can Web standards evangelists. My 4.5 cents. And I have never met Al. I am communicating my experience only. Sincerely, Shari Thurow, Founder and SEO Director Omni Marketing Interactive -------- new post - same topic -------- From: Lee Roberts Subject: SEO standards In many cases the subject of SEO v. W3C Standards is a confusing mix of opinions. When I teach website design I always use W3C Standards as the guidepost. Colleagues, however, taught FrontPage or Dreamweaver and claimed they taught website design. Other colleagues taught Photoshop and claimed they taught website design. When I teach SEO, I always take it to the basics of proper HTML / XHTML coding standards. By developing a properly coded web page, performance has always been better than using a jumbled up mesh of codes. Performance does not provide indication that search engine performance has improved nor does it mean that performance in ALL browsers is equal. It does indicate that performance in many regards is better than using multiple nested tables to achieve the same presentation. Over the years I've met and talked to many SEO people and even read articles, blog and forum posts by some of the louder people who have become recognized as _experts_. Often their opinions differ and create confusion for the novice. Over the years I've participated on the W3C accessibility and HTML standards work groups. While the standards are good to learn and understand, understanding them is often not as easy as one might think. In LED 2462 ( http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1871/190/ ), Thomas Schmitz says: > If you validate you avoid errors like white text on > a white background, unless you specify white > text on a white background in your CSS. CSS can be validated as well. You can validate your CSS at http://jigsaw.w3c.org. If you develop your CSS properly, you MUST set the background color at every use of color. If you use the same color codes for the background and text, the CSS validation tool will identify the problem. However, it will not identify a problem if the colors are only a few shades different. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to do CSS that a full validation is virtually impossible by computer. Visual inspection by someone that fully understands CSS is required to truly identify problems with CSS. > If you validate you will rank better, but only if the > search engines can see rank-worthy markup, > content or links that they could not see before > you published the W3C validated version. Unfortunately, this is a myth. Search engines do not check W3C validation of web pages as a factor of relevancy. The only thing a W3C validated page can assure you is that it the page meets the expectations of the W3C. It doesn't even assure you that the page will work properly in ALL browsers. > I will recommend accessibility standards > because it naturally leads to keyword richness Far too often SEO _experts_ claim that their use of accessibility standards meets the requirements of SEO. Where is the divide between SEO and accessibility? Few truly know the answer to this question. When an SEO person states that using the accessibility tools in HTML, I begin to question their validity. I question because immediately I know that they are keyword stuffing in an effort to build strong search engine positions; not because they want to ensure the web page is accessible to the disabled. Alternate descriptions (ALT tags) are so abused by SEO people trying to stuff keywords into the HTML that the people using JAWS or other screen readers become irritated and may be confused. Without a proper education in how to use this important attribute, a developer has no idea what they should put into the alternate description. The long description (longdesc) of an image is also abused due to a lack of understanding. The longdesc is a link to a page that provides an in-depth description of the image. It is not to be used to stuff keywords into the HTML. Table summaries (summary) are often misused as well. Table summaries should be empty for layout tables. However, table summaries for tables containing tabular data should contain a summary of the data within the table. Title attributes, not to be confused with title tags, can be used on any tag except < img >. The title attribute should be used sparingly, but when used in an anchor tag the attribute should identify the subject of the linked page -- not to stuff keywords into the web page for search engine performance. When the accessibility tools and proper HTML / XHTML are used _properly_ together web pages become more accessible to the disabled which then opens the doors to new markets. It does not, unfortunately, mean the search engines will have any respect for your efforts. Their focus will always be upon relevancy of content and when the search engines begin to check validity of the codes beware because their AI's will be a lot smarter and more easily identify unethical attempts to achieve top search engine placements. Regards, Lee Roberts http://www.merchantmetrix.com -------- new post - new topic -------- From: Will Bontrager Subject: Selling free > I'm wondering why those discussing "Selling free" have > apparently not considered releasing their software > using the open source model. - Veronica Yuill, LED Digest 2462 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/1871/190/ Veronica, I fail to see how it was apparent, as it was not mentioned at all. But I do see there was a huge misunderstanding. Therefore, let me be explicit. Our free software has always followed every suggestion you made in your post, sans one (all great suggestions, by the way). Our free software has always been free in both mentioned nuances ('free speech' and 'free beer') and with good documentation. It has always been open source. We have always fixed bugs promptly. And we always listen to suggestions from both users and programmers. I felt I needed to make that very clear so the misunderstanding is not propagated. We do it, or have been doing it, so people will visit willmaster.com and see the quality of our work and our support and remember us when they need additional software or services. (And many do remember us.) Regarding the one suggestion you made which we do not follow, listing on Source Forge: We were giving away free quality software at willmaster.com before sourceforge.com ever existed. But how long it has existed doesn't really matter. Our domains will continue to be the only authorized place to find download links to our free software so folks are more likely to remember us as the source. Be that as it may, we have never had any problem giving software away, provided the recipient put forth the effort to find us and find the link. The difficulty is the selling of free. Earlier posts are probably correct. The active pushing of free may itself be the reason for the resistance. Answering, "If it's so good, why do you have to push it?" might increase response. It's something to test. Prospective recipients of free may think there is a hidden agenda or cost involved when the thing is advertised in such a good light. And well they might feel exactly that way. The feeling may need to be addressed in a way satisfying to the reader before s/he will accept the free. After accepting it, the recipient's perceived value of the thing might be a lot different than its actual value. When something is received free, with little or no effort, nothing put into it, what value will the thing really have? But that's a different subject, or at least a different angle. Maybe I'll talk about that later. Or maybe someone else will. It may be prudent for those of us who do still offer free to try to see things from the recipient's point of view. Will Bontrager ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by: GetWebContent.com The Web's Most Experienced SEO Content Providers. Free no-obligation proposal: http://GetWebContent.com/LED SEOToolSet.com Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification Join the certified SEO directory: www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ The Archives: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/126/189/ Subscribe: http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/52/187/ Unsubscribe, Change Email, or Hold / Resume Delivery: http://www.led-digest.com/content/category/4/17/201/ (c) Copyright 1995-2007 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind." - Shakespeare |
