Redesign of site, what to look out for?

[seanh]

Hi all

Our website has had the same basic layout and code etc for around 5 years. We do add pages and change text and tags but the basic site design remains.

We currently have good rankings for many of our chosen keywords and home page is PR3.

Now has come the time to change things and bring a more modern look and feel. Obviously, the coding will change and we are using a CSS tableless design. I will be using the same directory structure and page filenames. Same host and domain.

What can I expect Google to do when it visits the 'new' site? I am worried we will drop out for a while as it is such a big change to every page. Is there anything I need to do to prepare more for this?

Thanks
Sean

[incrediblehelp]

The most important thing to look out fro is changing URLs or page names. Is this taking place?

[seanh]

I am keeping the same folder structure and copying the current page file names across so this shouldn't pose a problem.

Just wondering what might happen as the whole site is new coding?

[wige]

If all the page locations and content are staying the same, probably the only effect you will see is positive - your crawl rate may pick up briefly (there is a theory that if G sees a sitewide change it will increase its crawl rate temporarily to cache the updated versions. I have seen this happen on my own site after changing the look in one section of the site) and the code:content ratio is also important - the less code you have on the page, the better the search engines are supposed to be able to index your content, and switching from tables to tableless CSS should give you this benefit. You may see a short dip as the search engines digest the changes, but that is likely to be very brief. You may also see your PR tank, but that is more an effect of the way the toolbar is updated and it should not affect your rankings.

[suzstephens]

I've moved real estate sites from one host system to a completely different system with no noticeable impact on PR. In these situations I've not had the option of doing redirects or of maintaining the same file name/directory struction. The main thing I try to do is to make sure that my new page have at least as many keyphrases as its predecessor, if not more.

[blitzen]

(1) Launch a test site and restrict everything in robots.txt.
(2) If any page name is different, 301 redirect them in .htaccess.
(3) Test, test, test it.
(4) Transfer from old to new website.
(5) Submit a sitemap with new page links to Google.

[craigmn3]

My experience in this arena is that you might find your position in the search engines bobble for a while...while the search engines try to figure you out. But if you optimize well and design smartly, you should see an overall increase in a couple of months. Remember to make your navigation structure easy to follow for the spiders and try to keep everything withon two levels of the top.

[Peter (IMC)]

When ever you do something big to a site you´re going to hit some bumps. I can almost guarantee you will loose all your rankings for a while. Making sure your url's don't change will partially prevent this. You also need to make sure that your anchor texts don't change. (just a couple of links you can change but when you change all the anchor texts of your menu links you will drop for sure for a while.)

[Rephrase]

If you just change the design and leave all your content, links, etc where they are, you won't have any problems. Google reads text, not designs (that's why flash websites are a SEO nightmare).

[ccnj]

So if I change from .htm pages to .php pages, you're basically saying I'm shooting myself in the foot? Just checking.

[Dubbya]

Originally Posted by craigmn3

you might find your position in the search engines bobble for a while...while the search engines try to figure you out.

Yup, I concur. I did something similar, reduced the code to text ratio and things dipped for a few days then made some pretty significant gains.

Sounds like you've put a lot of thought into implementing your changes.

Don't sweat it too much.

[wige]

If you actually change the extension, you could be, because the SE will look at this as a new site structure. This could result in your site being dumped and reindexed, just because of the changed filenames. Of course, there are tricks you can do in the server configuration that would allow you to still use the .htm extension but create the pages with PHP.

[seanh]

Thanks for all your comments.

I am keeping page filenames, extensions and basic folder structure so hopefully this should not cause major problems.

Will keep you posted, need to do a lot more work before its ready!!!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

When ever you do something big to a site you´re going to hit some bumps. I can almost guarantee you will loose all your rankings for a while.

We redesigned Northern Cyprus Hotel Manolya in Lapta-Girne Kyrenia and Metaphysical Healing & Divine Prayer for Spirituality & Health and we did not have such problems. So I must disagree with you here.

There are for sure many issues which should be taken care of before the launch of the new site. If they are not considered, then what you said is true.

Just my experience.

[Clint1]

Obviously from the posts here; this has had some negative effect on some, but no effect on some others. There could be a wide variety of factors why. Personally, I wouldn't risk it and is why I haven't made any site-wide changes to CSS. I've heard many state that changing their site over to CSS caused them to be deleted or at least harmed in (no surprise), google, and I cannot risk that.

If you absolutely have to make the changes, then I would only do it to a few minor pages at once, pages that are indexed in all SE's with stability. Then submit the URL's to the SE's and keep watching for the cached version of the pages to change to the new layout. Then once they do, watch their SERP's for a few weeks. If there's no change, then do the rest of the pages. If there's a negative change, then don't do it, or do it and then you'll knew to expect something bad.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Obviously from the posts here; this has had some negative effect on some, but no effect on some others. There could be a wide variety of factors why. Personally, I wouldn't risk it and is why I haven't made any site-wide changes to CSS. I've heard many state that changing their site over to CSS caused them to be deleted or at least harmed in (no surprise), google, and I cannot risk that.

OK Clint. This is enough. Your comments are misleading. If the site is designed by people with serious knowledge and experience in web site development (including accessibility, usability, navigation, semantical structure, seo, collective intelligence programming, etc) there is no chance that something can go wrong.

To be more clear about this, I have a question a question: What is if someone makes some minor but bloody changes on his site. Is there no danger to screw up the site's rankings? If I would redesign a site, I can guarantee the site owner that such an unprofessional and primitive issue with never happen. If you are unsure if YOU will manage to design a site and wont have a negative affect, don't draw others into your problems. You are putting everyone in one pot; Professionals and Scummers. So please give that up. Too much is too much. Please!

Originally Posted by Clint1

If you absolutely have to make the changes, then I would only do it to a few minor pages at once, pages that are indexed in all SE's with stability.

As I said above. What if the minor issues are not suitable. Won't they have a negative effect?

Originally Posted by Clint1

Then submit the URL's to the SE's and keep watching for the cached version of the pages to change to the new layout. Then once they do, watch their SERP's for a few weeks. If there's no change, then do the rest of the pages. If there's a negative change, then don't do it, or do it and then you'll knew to expect something bad.

WOW!!! That is a new technique for me.

Just my two cents.

[Webnauts]

I would also like to add here a statement of Bruce Clay, President, Bruce Clay, Inc. at the Search Engine Strategies in San Jose:

Originally Posted by Bruce Clay

When I redid my site, I switched from tables entirely to CSS. I also made it W3C compliant. That may be something that emerges. I was moderating a panel at adTech and Google said that the cleaner the code, chances are the search engines will get a better idea of what your site is about. From that point of view, go to CSS because it's simpler.

More: Organic Listings Forum: SES, San Jose 2007 » Unofficial SEO Blog

Thanks God another internet marketing expert confirms my position.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

OK Clint. This is enough. Your comments are misleading. If the site is designed by people with serious knowledge and experience in web site development (including accessibility, usability, navigation, semantical structure, seo, collective intelligence programming, etc) there is no chance that something can go wrong.

Damn, what the hell is your problem?? Someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed today?? "Enough is enough"???? Just what the hell is that supposed to mean?? This is my FIRST freakin' post on this thread!! Don't cop some bad attitude with me!! My post is totally logical, sensible, and with no attitude towards anyone here, and you own me an apology!!

"Obviously from the posts here; this has had some negative effect on some, but no effect on some others."
Now do you dispute that? Perhaps you should read this thread. Did not some say "no problems" and did not some say "they HAD problems? YES THEY DID, so go jump THEIR ass instead of mine!

"There could be a wide variety of factors why."
And do you deny that? You think there is only ONE FACTOR as to why SOME had no problems while others DID have problems? Of course not! It could have been any number of things that resulted in their fall or staying the same after their site changes!!

"Personally, I wouldn't risk it and is why I haven't made any site-wide changes to CSS."
And that is MY "two cents worth". Are you the only one here that can make a comment?? NO. If one likes to gamble with their livelihood, then FINE, DO IT. PERSONALLY, I would NOT! We are ALL entitled to what we will and will not do!

"I've heard many state that changing their site over to CSS caused them to be deleted or at least harmed in (no surprise), google, and I cannot risk that."
So, I guess you're calling me a liar?? You must not get around much. Several other forums have had numerous posts over the years regarding site owners changing over to CSS and they WERE either deleted from the G index or dropped significantly. If you don't like it, tuff, that's the way it is, and I can't change it. And PERSONALLY, (my two cents again), I wouldn't risk it--the site wide change! That's an OPINION.

To be more clear about this, I have a question a question: What is if someone makes some minor but bloody changes on his site. Is there no danger to screw up the site's rankings?

Of course there is risk, but that would depend upon WHAT KIND of changes one does! One could screw up the changes and therefore screw up their rankings. By the same token that is NOT to say that one can do any site-wide changes PERFECTLY and NOT be negatively affected either. That IS a possibility.

If I would redesign a site, I can guarantee the site owner that such an unprofessional and primitive issue with never happen.

Well good for you. Where would you like your reward delivered? "Professionality" has nothing to do with it. There is no logic when dealing with G. Maybe one will be fine, maybe they will NOT. There is no way to be 100% sure. NO ONE can ALWAYS predict how an SE will react and especially not G. If YOU can, then great!

If you are unsure if YOU will manage to design a site and wont have a negative affect, don't draw others into your problems.

WTF?? You've got a serious communication and comprehension problem. AGAIN, giving a LOGICAL and SENSIBLE comment is NOT "drawing others" into "my problems"!!! Get over it.

You are putting everyone in one pot; Professionals and Scummers. So please give that up. Too much is too much. Please!

????????????????

(Originally Posted by me) If you absolutely have to make the changes, then I would only do it to a few minor pages at once, pages that are indexed in all SE's with stability.

As I said above. What if the minor issues are not suitable. Won't they have a negative effect?

Covered above. The POINT of that is to simply SEE HOW the SE's will react TO the changes!

WOW!!! That is a new technique for me.

How is "submitting the URL's to the SE's and keep watching for the cached version of the pages to change to the new layout" a new technique for you?? A site owner makes layout changes to a webpage. They are wondering HOW or if that will affect them in the SERP's. How do you find out? Keep clicking the ACTIVE link of the page in the SE's index?? Of course not, that will not always work even if the active current link is the NEW layout. It's logical to wait until the "cached" version of the page is the same as the active page in an SE's index. That way, when some time has passed, and said webpage is at the same position in the SERP's then the site owner WILL KNOW all is probably Ok and the changes were fine. IF said webpage with the new layout is NOT in the same position in the SERP's and has DROPPED, then the site owner will KNOW what to expect if the changes were site-wide!

Of course if YOU prefer NOT to test, then FINE. Don't bash, criticize and cop some bad attitude with OTHERS that DO want to do the logical thing and TEST (as at least one OTHER on this thread ALSO SAID).

Now how about finding a bit more diplomatic and friendly way of replying to posts?
Thank you.

[Traffic Master]

Originally Posted by blitzen

(1) Launch a test site and restrict everything in robots.txt.
(2) If any page name is different, 301 redirect them in .htaccess.
(3) Test, test, test it.
(4) Transfer from old to new website.
(5) Submit a sitemap with new page links to Google.

Excellent sugestion. This is the best way to do it. There will be no risk.

[Webnauts]

Clint my apologies if you felt offended. My reaction was because I thought that you were making out of your experience and out of what you head a general rule.

And I would like to add here: There is a lot of logic dealing with Google. There is no logic for Google dealing with people who have no idea what they are doing; the ones who blame Google for their incompetence. I am not playing the Google fan here, but that is my experience.

[Duncan Pollock]

Seanh:
I'm tempted to remind you of the age old advice that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What, for instance, makes you decide that "the time has come ..."? Moreover, why would you want to change a site that already has a good web presence?
I'm not readily convinced that altering the appearance to "a more modern one" is going to make much difference, and you may even suffer some unexpected/unwanted consequences.
The key to a site's effectiveness (i.e. generating sales/signups/whatever) is in the wording, the message, the way in which you help visitors recognize your Unique Selling Proposition, a design that's user friendly, the strength of its "appeal to action," the overall "special difference" that makes the search engines realize (and reflect) its relevance to the words/phrases that people put in the search box. And little of this depends on the look of the pages. Rather, it's the "sound" of them that matters.
Change for the sake of change isn't going to make a difference. You need to have a good reason for altering what's presently working -- and this, I'm sure, lies in a better choice of words and exposition instead of a switch in page colours, an increase in white space, the adoption of SEO wizardry, etc.

Duncan

[privatefleet]

We had a complete site redesign a few months back but kept all content exactly the same with only a few changes with internal linking structure. Made the switch, held our breath and checked the stats.

Traffic didn't falter thank God, then after a while most of the pages developed white-bar-itis and we expected the worst (pages which had been displaying a decent PR for years)

Thankfully our fears were infounded, traffic has continued to flow and build...

I, for one, am very glad we did it - I don't agree with the "aint broke don't fix it" theory. To maintain a competitive website, it's important to keep modifying, overhailing (to some extent) and building.

Good luck

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Clint my apologies if you felt offended. My reaction was because I thought that you were making out of your experience and out of what you head a general rule.

I understand.

No, I thought I was clear....it's no general rule and this is not my personal experience (even if it was I'd still mention it, that's what these forums are for). I was just giving information from numerous others that had this negative effect happen to them after a big layout change or to CSS. It's something one must consider.

And I would like to add here: There is a lot of logic dealing with Google. There is no logic for Google dealing with people who have no idea what they are doing; the ones who blame Google for their incompetence. I am not playing the Google fan here, but that is my experience.

I have YET to see any logic with google. They defy the word, but that's for another thread. Sure I agree, that many times site owners blame G for their OWN mistakes and incompetence, or even blackhat techniques, but by the same token we cannot lose site of the fact that many times it's google that's doing the screw-ups to totally whitehat pages and sites that are NOT incompetent. Hundreds of forums on the web bear this out on a daily basis. They indeed have more screw-ups that any other SE, that's not just in my own experience but droves of others as well. (That's also for another thread).

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

Seanh:
I'm tempted to remind you of the age old advice that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What, for instance, makes you decide that "the time has come ..."? Moreover, why would you want to change a site that already has a good web presence?
I'm not readily convinced that altering the appearance to "a more modern one" is going to make much difference, and you may even suffer some unexpected/unwanted consequences.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Why gamble? Of course if one is experience big problems, then you have nothing to lose by doing it.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Hundreds of forums on the web bear this out on a daily basis.

I am just wondering, we myself and my clients never experienced something like that so far? If in all forums of the whole universe people will claim that they have been screwed up from Google, that will not change my opinion due to my own experience.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am just wondering, we myself and my clients never experienced something like that so far?

Well, that's great. Many people wonder that same thing, and, why they HAVE experienced it. No one knows, that is the lack of logic of G. When someone finds out, they can sell it and make a fortune several times over.

If in all forums of the whole universe people will claim that they have been screwed up from Google, that will not change my opinion due to my own experience.

That attitude is narrow-minded and closed-minded. Just because you've never personally experienced something is no reason to call those that have experienced "not telling the truth" or discredit their experiences. Are they all lying? No, they, WE, have much better things to do. If you choose to be narrow and closed-minded and refuse to open yourself up to the possibility that other things exist, you'll never learn anything. I've always been screwed by G. That's my experience. Do I think those that have NOT been screwed by them such as yourself are lying, or that's just not possible? No. I'm open to other possibilities because I'm open-minded and realize that just because I haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But luck will eventually come to an end, sometime. It's hit or miss with them, and no one knows why. Their motto: "If we haven't done you in yet, we eventually will get around to it".

It does exist, those sites and people do exist. I wish to God it didn't, but it does. They are not all lying about it. And I'm talking about white-hatters, not black-hatters who deserve the bad they get (IF that is they ever get it!)

There are many that get slammed by MSN, or by Y, Ask, etc., but have always been perfect in G. No one knows why. With me, it's always been the other way around; I do fantastic in every SE on the planet, except for G. My pages that are STILL IN G, do great. But those pages are very few and falling by the day.

[Duncan Pollock]

Clint:
I'm now tempted to refer to another longtime saying: "The fault lies in us, because we are underlings."
My point is that Google is sufficiently complicated that when it does something that doesn't suit us, we should try to fathom out what WE are doing wrong. Blaming the Google gods is too easy and I doubt that any of us will ever understand their thinking. However, there has to be a reason and our challenge is to accept that it exists and do whatever it takes to trigger the action we want them to take.

Duncan

[Webnauts]

Ducan I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you here.:

I don't agree that Google is complicated. Maybe for many people Software Engineering and its Semantics are difficult to understand and to cope with.

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Duncan Pollock

Clint:
I'm now tempted to refer to another longtime saying: "The fault lies in us, because we are underlings."

Something can be said for that, we're definitely "underlings"!

My point is that Google is sufficiently complicated that when it does something that doesn't suit us, we should try to fathom out what WE are doing wrong.

What makes you think "we" are always doing something wrong and that G can do no wrong? Quite the contrary.

Blaming the Google gods is too easy and I doubt that any of us will ever understand their thinking.

Blaming G is all that's left when one is totally whitehat, followed all guidelines, and even has had G look at sites and say nothing is wrong with them.

However, there has to be a reason

The reason is faulty algos.

and our challenge is to accept that it exists and do whatever it takes to trigger the action we want them to take.

Oh I accept it exists, and I am doing whatever it takes to trigger action!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Clint1

Blaming G is all that's left when one is totally whitehat, followed all guidelines, and even has had G look at sites and say nothing is wrong with them.

That is what you did not understand yet: Google does not tell you how to build a site that conforms to web semantics and semantical structure. That is another authority.

To make it simple: If you are capable to create a site that accommodates most possible audience, the better rankings you will get. In other words, if a site is accessible, usable, navigable and perceivable, you can achieve better rankings. THAT IS FACT!!! Didn't you ever hear the Google or Yahoo guys telling us to check our site with the text browser Lynx? Search Engines are blind, exactly like blind users too.

Design for humans (including the ones with disabilities), and that with search engines in mind. For humans is the on-page optimization part (accessibility, usability, navigability, perceiveability), and for search engine the off-site optimization (backlinks, etc).

Get it or let it.

P.S. I recommend the ones who doubt what a say to check this book: O'Reilly Media -- Bookstore: Programming Collective Intelligence

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is what you did not understand yet: Google does not tell you how to build a site that conforms to web semantics and semantical structure. That is another authority.

No, I fully understand and know that.

To make it simple: If you are capable to create a site that accommodates most possible audience, the better rankings you will get. In other words, if a site is accessible, usable, navigable and perceivable, you can achieve better rankings. THAT IS FACT!!! Didn't you ever hear the Google or Yahoo guys telling us to check our site with the text browser Lynx? Search Engines are blind, exactly like blind users too.

Design for humans (including the ones with disabilities), and that with search engines in mind. For humans is the on-page optimization part (accessibility, usability, navigability, perceiveability), and for search engine the off-site optimization (backlinks, etc).

Get it or let it.

P.S. I recommend the ones who doubt what a say to check this book: O'Reilly Media -- Bookstore: Programming Collective Intelligence

And I don't dispute any of that, I agree. However, following all these things does NOT mean you will be immune to G mistakes, screw-ups, faulty algos, etc. Anyone that doesn't believe that is setting themselves up for huge disappointment, or worse.

[ccnj]

OK, so here's my question. If I have a site that is pretty decent on the navigation (even using lynx, I can still get around), does that mean Google is going to rank me higher? I am not sure I understand that... If that is the case, where would I be otherwise, because I have not been able to crack into the top 100 listings for the last year... I understand I am in an unbelievably crowded space - credit card processing (Credit Card Processing & Complete E-Commerce Solutions), but still, I have been doing a lot of things to help my site grow, but still not getting into the top rankings. That's why I am not sure the navigation thing really will work.

J

Originally Posted by Webnauts

That is what you did not understand yet: Google does not tell you how to build a site that conforms to web semantics and semantical structure. That is another authority.

To make it simple: If you are capable to create a site that accommodates most possible audience, the better rankings you will get. In other words, if a site is accessible, usable, navigable and perceivable, you can achieve better rankings. THAT IS FACT!!! Didn't you ever hear the Google or Yahoo guys telling us to check our site with the text browser Lynx? Search Engines are blind, exactly like blind users too.

Design for humans (including the ones with disabilities), and that with search engines in mind. For humans is the on-page optimization part (accessibility, usability, navigability, perceiveability), and for search engine the off-site optimization (backlinks, etc).

Get it or let it.

P.S. I recommend the ones who doubt what a say to check this book: O'Reilly Media -- Bookstore: Programming Collective Intelligence

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by ccnj

OK, so here's my question. If I have a site that is pretty decent on the navigation (even using lynx, I can still get around), does that mean Google is going to rank me higher? I am not sure I understand that... If that is the case, where would I be otherwise, because I have not been able to crack into the top 100 listings for the last year... I understand I am in an unbelievably crowded space - credit card processing (Credit Card Processing & Complete E-Commerce Solutions), but still, I have been doing a lot of things to help my site grow, but still not getting into the top rankings. That's why I am not sure the navigation thing really will work.
J

First, lose the PopUp. No one likes them. I can't even get rid of the damn thing, it just keeps popping up over and over!

You're not using text for your nav menu, only images. SE's of course can't read images. You should make them text that will be parsable and spiderable and that way they'll see the link text (anchor text) and that should help you.

You have an INSANE amount of garbage at the top of your code, that can't be good. If you must use it, put it at the bottom of your page.

You've also disabled right click so I don't know the page size, but from the look of the HTML code, and all the white space, it's massive, especially for such a small page physically. If it's really large, that's also not good. Try and clean up all that white space, that would make it a little smaller.

It's anyone's "guess" where you should be in G. That's the billion dollar question for which no one has any real answer. Yes, in such an incredibly competitive field, (mine is even more competitive than that with about 46 million results), one is not doing bad being in your spot. But for Credit Card Processing & Complete E-Commerce Solutions, you're #1, you can't beat that. I show less than 14 million results for that search. Credit Card Processing and Complete E-Commerce Solutions you're still #1 with less than 2 million results. What phrase are you using where you're not in the top 100?

[ccnj]

Originally Posted by Clint1

First, lose the PopUp. No one likes them. I can't even get rid of the damn thing, it just keeps popping up over and over!

The pop-up should be able to close - just hit the "X" on top. I know it's annoying, but believe it or not, it is providing somewhat of a benefit for me...

Originally Posted by Clint1

You're not using text for your nav menu, only images. SE's of course can't read images. You should make them text that will be parsable and spiderable and that way they'll see the link text (anchor text) and that should help you.

You're right - they are images, but they also have title tags and alt tags, which would come up in Lynx or a search engine's eyes.

Originally Posted by Clint1

You have an INSANE amount of garbage at the top of your code, that can't be good. If you must use it, put it at the bottom of your page.

I can try - that's where I was advised to stick the popup info...

Originally Posted by Clint1

You've also disabled right click so I don't know the page size, but from the look of the HTML code, and all the white space, it's massive, especially for such a small page physically. If it's really large, that's also not good. Try and clean up all that white space, that would make it a little smaller.

I'm not sure I understand the white space issue you are referring to. As far as the code goes, you can still go to View Source on the menu bar...

Originally Posted by Clint1

It's anyone's "guess" where you should be in G. That's the billion dollar question for which no one has any real answer. Yes, in such an incredibly competitive field, (mine is even more competitive than that with about 46 million results), one is not doing bad being in your spot. But for Credit Card Processing & Complete E-Commerce Solutions, you're #1, you can't beat that. I show less than 14 million results for that search. Credit Card Processing and Complete E-Commerce Solutions you're still #1 with less than 2 million results. What phrase are you using where you're not in the top 100?

As for search terms, if I get rid of the full title, and just search for e-commerce solutions, or credit card processing, or merchant accounts... I am not so high...At least last time I checked - not so long ago!

Thanks,
J

[Clint1]

Originally Posted by ccnj

The pop-up should be able to close - just hit the "X" on top. I know it's annoying, but believe it or not, it is providing somewhat of a benefit for me...

It wouldn't stay closed. I'd close it, and whenever I'd move the mouse it kept coming back again and again (IE6). Is the benefit for you, greater than the benefit of not having your visitors leave out of annoyance? If it is, then I guess it's worth it, but it would have to be worth a lot to not have visitors stay. Personally, when I PU's at a site, I leave.

You're right - they are images, but they also have title tags and alt tags, which would come up in Lynx or a search engine's eyes.

Title tags and alt tags have very little meaning and weight compared to link text. G for example places a HUGE amount of importance, relevance and weight on link text. That and PR is the basis of their (flawed) "system".

I can try - that's where I was advised to stick the popup info...

That's strange, it's before your head tag. SE's aren't going to like to have to spider through all that meaningless BS before they get to actual relevant content. Every little bit helps. If it can't be moved, and you still must use a PU, then I'd find another type who's code can go at the bottom of the page.

I'm not sure I understand the white space issue you are referring to. As far as the code goes, you can still go to View Source on the menu bar...

I don't know how else to describe it. It's well.....white space, white space of nothing throughout the HTML code. Large gaps. All that takes up K's. You can run the page through the W3C validator and pick the HTML Tidy option and see what I mean. I know I can view source that way, that's how I saw your code.

As for search terms, if I get rid of the full title, and just search for e-commerce solutions, or credit card processing, or merchant accounts... I am not so high...At least last time I checked - not so long ago!

You won't do great for credit processing because your title is ......credit card processing..... As for e-commerce solutions, the only way you can do better for that on your end, is to put it first in the title. The first words in the title are seen as the most important. So you'd have to create more pages, or pick a page that's ranked well, then change its title's first words to e-commerce solutions. Also try ecommerce solutions.

Of course to rank well for merchant accounts that would need to be in your titles somewhere, again, preferably first. Or, have loads of people linking to you with the link text of "merchant accounts" (again, thanks to G).

Also, the smaller the title tag, the better. If you were to place just credit card processing in your title tag for example, (or any of the others by themselves), your SERP's for that phrase would generally and likely rise. If you put all three phrases in one title, it "dilutes" them. Hence the reason for mulitple well-ranked pages that you can modify around these phrases.

Or again, just have TONS of site owners linking to you with the link text of your choosing that will boost you (yes, again thanks to G). If enough linked to you with "the smartest guy in the world" or "the dumbest guy in the world", you'd be #1 for that phrase. This is why their system is so flawed because one's fate rests in the hands of others. Ruin your competitors by getting thousands of links pointing to their sites with the link text of "scam". See how it works...or works against you?

This really infuriates the hell outta me, because when or IF I use G to search for something, what I search for isn't even on the freakin' page. The sites only show in the results because of how OTHERS have linked TO them. Click the "Cached" link and you'll see "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page". Well, that doesn't help me one bit in most cases. That's because too many people can link to the pages with the wrong link text, but G doesn't care.

[Traffic Master]

Waoh, a lot of things have been said. It's interesting.