Notifications
Clear all
Page 2 / 2
Prev
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:25:22 GMT, SEO Dave
wrote:
>Interesting how you are studying XML and I'm using it to make my
>"artificially-created pages" that validate.
I studied it years ago. It's different now, I understand, as they use
schemas now. I dunno what a schema is!
>You really should get your facts straight first.
they weren't wrong.
>Bill can you validate PHP based sites?
No.
>What about PHP based sites using an XML data feed?
Like from Amazon? I do mean to look into that but haven't had time.
Don't forget I'm still sleeping a lot in the day.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
Big Bill wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:25:22 GMT, SEO Dave
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Interesting how you are studying XML and I'm using it to make my
>>"artificially-created pages" that validate.
>
> I studied it years ago. It's different now, I understand, as they use
> schemas now. I dunno what a schema is![/color]
(XML) Schema has a similar function as a DTD, but is more powerfull.
Moreover, it's XML :-D.
[color=green]
>>What about PHP based sites using an XML data feed?
>
> Like from Amazon? I do mean to look into that but haven't had time.
> Don't forget I'm still sleeping a lot in the day.[/color]
Isn't that: read the feed, and transform it to HTML?
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:20:12 GMT, Big Bill
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 16:25:22 GMT, SEO Dave
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Interesting how you are studying XML and I'm using it to make my
>>"artificially-created pages" that validate.
>
>I studied it years ago. It's different now, I understand, as they use
>schemas now. I dunno what a schema is!
>
>>You really should get your facts straight first.
>
>they weren't wrong.[/color]
Yes they are, you said-
"Dave would manage, so would most people, they're
just worried they won't so they try to avoid it."
With regards to validation.
I am not worried about validation and I do not try to avoid it. So you
are wrong.
[color=green]
>>Bill can you validate PHP based sites?
>
>No.[/color]
Then you shouldn't do posts that suggest you can do something someone
else can't when the opposite appears to be the truth. From the looks
of it I can validate more stuff than you can.
And just to show I'm not on an ego trip, from some of the stuff John's
mentioned recently there's at least one type of code he's mentioned
I've not worked with yet, so i guess he can validate more types of
code than I can.
All because I say validation isn't important to SEO doesn't mean I
can't validate the code I create or that I don't in general validate.
Like I said most of my pages validate. As it happens my most recent
designs won't work in multiple browsers if it doesn't validate due to
CSS quirks between browsers. If you've ever worked with floating divs
you'll know what I mean.
Stuff that's over 18 months old might not validate because I tended to
use browser specific attributes back then that don't always validate.
[color=green]
>>What about PHP based sites using an XML data feed?
>
>Like from Amazon? I do mean to look into that but haven't had time.
>Don't forget I'm still sleeping a lot in the day.[/color]
Any XML feed, I've been working with a few lately. It seems to be the
(or at least one possible) future of affiliate marketing. Pretty cool
what you can do with them.
>BB
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
SEO Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:20:12 GMT, Big Bill
> wrote:
> And just to show I'm not on an ego trip, from some of the stuff John's
> mentioned recently there's at least one type of code he's mentioned
> I've not worked with yet, so i guess he can validate more types of
> code than I can.
The & thingy? That's not that hard: since HTML uses there had to
be a way to escape a < , otherwise things like:
The bold element: should not be used anymore
Would be a problem :-). Hence an encoding trick is used, & marks the
start of: something special is coming, so the above should be written
as:
The bold element: <b> should not be used anymore
But now we have another problem, how can I put this posting on a web
page...
Ok, another level of escape is required, now for the &, so:
The bold element: < ...
The validator warns when you use & in an URL because:
script.cgi?foo=bar&bar=foor
&bar looks like an entity encoding.
[ snip ]
> Any XML feed, I've been working with a few lately. It seems to be the
> (or at least one possible) future of affiliate marketing. Pretty cool
> what you can do with them.
You just glue the feed in HTML? Or you parse it, and then convert it
into HTML? In the latter case validation is easy. In the former, that
sounds like a bad idea.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
On 6 Jun 2005 01:28:50 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>
> The bold element: <b> should not be used anymore
>
Are you under estimating my understanding again John?
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/meta-tags-optimization.html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>SEO Tutorial - Meta Tags Optimization</TITLE>
<meta name="description" content="Create the perfect meta tags for
high search engine placement.">
<meta name="keywords" content="Meta Tags Optimization">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../seo-gold.css"
media="all">
</HEAD>
<body>
And it validates 🙂
Also from ages ago
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123/search-engine-optimization/meta-tags.html
How would I get the javascript to validate?
David
--
Free Search Engine Optimization Tutorial
http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
SEO Dave wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2005 01:28:50 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> The bold element: <b> should not be used anymore
>>
>
> Are you under estimating my understanding again John?[/color]
Did I write that?
I only gave an explanation of how and why an & in an URL *should* be
encoded. Recently you didn't know that, so I was thinking you where
referring to that one when you wrote that I know more.
> And it validates 🙂
You could reduce a bit of bandwidth, the > doesn't need to be escaped in
most (if not all) cases; see
http://johnbokma.com/perl/google-position.html (which uses > a lot in
the Perl source) and how it validates:
< http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnbokma.com%2Fperl%
2Fgo
ogle-position.html>
> Also from ages ago
Yes, but somewhere in May you had a big problem encoding an & in an URL.
I am not really interested in looking it up, and it's not a big deal.
The explanation was not directed at you per se, but at the group.
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ooar123/search-engine-optimization/meta-
ta
> gs.html
>
> How would I get the javascript to validate?
add type="text/javascript" to the script element
The other problem is that the validator chokes on the .
Sheet');
might do the trick, or something like:
Sheet' + unescape('%3c/a>'));
Both not tested, but I can look into it more tomorrow if neither does
work.
OTOH, replacing it with rel="nofollow" might do the same trick, and more
people are able to use the link.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get a SEO report of your site for just 100 USD:
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html
Posted : 06/06/2005 5:01 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Big Bill" wrote in message
news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
> This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
> sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
> engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
> of the ibl's.
>
> I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
> relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>
I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it up
when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
validated.
For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my non
valid one.
And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to state(as
I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can help
SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just about
the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
them!
But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a way
that it is looked at.
Stacey
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Stacey" skrev i meddelandet
news:qfmpe.23319$rb6.5811@lakeread07...
> "Big Bill" wrote in message
> news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
>
>
>[color=green]
> > This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
> > sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
> > engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
> > of the ibl's.
> >
> > I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
> > relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
> >
>
>
> I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it[/color]
up
> when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
> validated.
>
> For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my non
> valid one.
>
> And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
>
> I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to
state(as
> I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can
help
> SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just
about
> the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
> allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
> them!
>
> But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a way
> that it is looked at.
>
> Stacey
So, you assume so far that a valid html page gets a higher rank, don?t you?
--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/italien-valle-daosta/boende-i-valle-daosta.html
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Luigi Donatello Asero" wrote in message
news:Hhmpe.26760$d5.177931@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Stacey" skrev i meddelandet
> news:qfmpe.23319$rb6.5811@lakeread07...[color=green]
>> "Big Bill" wrote in message
>> news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>> > sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>> > engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>> > of the ibl's.
>> >
>> > I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>> > relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it[/color]
> up
>> when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
>> validated.
>>
>> For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my
>> non
>> valid one.
>>
>> And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
>>
>> I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to
> state(as
>> I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can
> help
>> SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just
> about
>> the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
>> allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
>> them!
>>
>> But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a
>> way
>> that it is looked at.
>>
>> Stacey
>
>
> So, you assume so far that a valid html page gets a higher rank, don?t
> you?[/color]
Isn't that something to what I just said? -I know this isn't conclusive
results....but it is enough for me to state that a valid page can help SERPs
somewhat. -
BTW it was 2 valid pages not 1 my mistake. I did describe the SERP's
involving 2 different pages.
Stacey
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Stacey" skrev i meddelandet
news:Azmpe.23525$rb6.23447@lakeread07...
> "Luigi Donatello Asero" wrote in message
> news:Hhmpe.26760$d5.177931@newsb.telia.net...[color=green]
> >
> > So, you assume so far that a valid html page gets a higher rank, don?t
> > you?
>
> Isn't that something to what I just said? -I know this isn't conclusive
> results....but it is enough for me to state that a valid page can help[/color]
SERPs
> somewhat. -
I only wanted to be sure that I had not misunderstood.
> BTW it was 2 valid pages not 1 my mistake. I did describe the SERP's
> involving 2 different pages.
Ok.
--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/italien-valle-daosta/boende-i-valle-daosta.html
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Luigi Donatello Asero" wrote in message
news:XHmpe.26763$d5.177944@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Stacey" skrev i meddelandet
> news:Azmpe.23525$rb6.23447@lakeread07...[color=green]
>> "Luigi Donatello Asero" wrote in message
>> news:Hhmpe.26760$d5.177931@newsb.telia.net...[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > So, you assume so far that a valid html page gets a higher rank, don?t
>> > you?
>>
>> Isn't that something to what I just said? -I know this isn't conclusive
>> results....but it is enough for me to state that a valid page can help[/color]
> SERPs
>> somewhat. -
>
>
> I only wanted to be sure that I had not misunderstood.[/color]
OH, OK!
Stacey
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:07:02 -0400, "Stacey"
wrote:
>"Big Bill" wrote in message
>news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
>
>
>[color=green]
>> This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>> sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>> engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>> of the ibl's.
>>
>> I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>> relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>>
>
>
>I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it up
>when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
>validated.
>
>For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my non
>valid one.
>
>And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
>
>I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to state(as
>I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can help
>SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just about
>the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
>allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
>them!
>
>But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a way
>that it is looked at.
>
>Stacey[/color]
I look at it like, I'm right.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ [email]seo@kruse.demon.co.uk[/email]
seo that watches the river flow...
--
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Big Bill" wrote in message
news:7gvba15v46i6tso7lvbadvnqai2dttpp5p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:07:02 -0400, "Stacey"
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"Big Bill" wrote in message
>>news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>>> sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>>> engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>>> of the ibl's.
>>>
>>> I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>>> relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it
>>up
>>when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
>>validated.
>>
>>For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my non
>>valid one.
>>
>>And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
>>
>>I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to
>>state(as
>>I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can
>>help
>>SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just
>>about
>>the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
>>allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
>>them!
>>
>>But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a way
>>that it is looked at.
>>
>>Stacey[/color]
>
> I look at it like, I'm right.[/color]
LOL!!
I was meaning how the way Google looks at sites now compared to last week or
before that. I didn't move up with the changes until this latest drinking
binge Google went through(bourbon).
Stacey
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Re: Validation, ranking, and seo (tee-hee...)
"Big Bill" wrote in message
news:7gvba15v46i6tso7lvbadvnqai2dttpp5p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:07:02 -0400, "Stacey"
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"Big Bill" wrote in message
>>news:5dg3a19ec5ibg1idu0b8lb3080248dhpdn@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This, given that very few sites validate, can explain why so many
>>> sites can be successful despite the fact that they don't validate. The
>>> engines have no option but to place great stress on the text content
>>> of the ibl's.
>>>
>>> I suppose the next logical step is to get a successful site with
>>> relatively few ibls having appropriate anchor text.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I stated that I would be honest with my little testing done. And bring it
>>up
>>when I seen results. I have just now noticed results on one page that was
>>validated.
>>
>>For heart shaped rug/s Google is bringing up my valid page ahead of my non
>>valid one.
>>
>>And for heart shaped rag rug/s the same thing.
>>
>>I know this isn't conclusive results....but it is enough for me to
>>state(as
>>I said I would if someone could show some proof) that a valid page can
>>help
>>SERPs somewhat. As those valid pages of mine have less PR and are just
>>about
>>the same as far as on page factors. But the one not valid has more
>>allinanchor. My other SERP's are stable and I am still standing good in
>>them!
>>
>>But this is after bourbon and such. So, there can be a difference in a way
>>that it is looked at.
>>
>>Stacey[/color]
>
> I look at it like, I'm right.
>[/color]
Oh, yeah...and you are kind of right. Since now that there is some sort of
kind of proof related to better SERPs.
BTW, you can thank me whenever for proving the point. 🙂
Stacey
Posted : 08/06/2005 5:33 am
Page 2 / 2
Prev
Forum Statistics
6
Forums
5,496
Topics
35.8 K
Posts
8
Online
22 K
Members
Latest Post: why does salesforce best CRM ? Our newest member: BrentMup Recent Posts Unread Posts
