SEO and tableless design

[DrTandem1]

Dreamweaver does far more than simply generate HTML. I'm assunming by "hand code" you mean you type every line of code. If not, then you are using an HTML generator in code view. There is a difference. There really is no point in typing every character of a tag over and over again when a simple keystroke or click will do it for you.

[UCSI]

I totally agree with DrTandem here - why not make your life easier and code faster by using a tool - i think it's still good practice to learn CSS and/or html (amongst other coding languages) and be able to hand code and/or trouble shoot, but why not use a tool like Dreamweaver to speed things up.

I also like the browser cross checking feature right in code view - makes my life easier for sure.

[prof611]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Not sure why/how this got moved, but I have moved to the Search Engine Forum.

Cheers, MJ

It got moved to Services for Sale/Hire because I was looking for an SEO person to hire. Now, of course, as I mentioned in my last post of December 8, this thread has become a renewal of an old debate.

I would like to once more thank all of you who tried to give me some sound advice, much of which I have taken. Since my client is also a friend, and does not have all that much money to spend, I decided to try my hand at SEO myself. I am not going to charge her much for my services, since I'm considering it a "learning experience."

I have been working at it on and off for about a week, but I am not rushing -- one step at a time. My first effort was to redesign each page so that the HTML/CSS coding put the text first on the source page, even though it's not first on the visible page. Although I know it's not impossible to do using tables (I've done it), it's MUCH EASIER using divs. At the same time, I changed the TITLE tag to place the key words first.

Amazingly (to me, at least), the Google search results for my primary targeted keywords went from #134 to #21! (Before anybody can object that Google is "learning" my search patterns, I will mention that I used the Google tool, https://adwords.google.com/select/Ad...ingPreviewTool, which does not make use of your personal search results, and allows you to pretend you are from anywhere in the world you want.)

My efforts this week will be to work on keywords, and on improving the Google AdWords results.

After the holidays, I will concentrate on backlinks.

Thanks again for all the help!

[iany]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Dreamweaver does far more than simply generate HTML. I'm assunming by "hand code" you mean you type every line of code. If not, then you are using an HTML generator in code view. There is a difference. There really is no point in typing every character of a tag over and over again when a simple keystroke or click will do it for you.

Ok, but this is really semantics. I find it quicker to type tags than find on tool bar and click.

I don't use any of DW's (or any web editor for that matter) templates, CSS or otherwise (perhaps wrongly).

I ain't a designer, I am only the journeyman technician who tries very hard to render designers thoughts to the web. My worst nightmares have been "fixing" sites that have been murdered using DW (hence my distaste for the product).

[DrTandem1]

Are you sure you aren't confusing DW the FrontPage?

[iany]

No. FrontPage is so bad it is fun but bad DW is just crap. However, I fear that we are straying way off the original topic. Each to his/her own, huh?

[DrTandem1]

Not really. One can design with CSS using DW. I have never seen a site "murdered" by DW. I have seen sites "murdered" by those that ignore code warnings and violations no matter what was used to generate the code. Tables were not intended to be used for layout. However, in the beginning there was no other way to layout a page with images and such.

Hand-coding tables can be very tedious. DW makes it fairly easy. It can also be used as a WYSIWYG using drag-and-drop. Style Sheets can also be labor intensive. A generator also makes them easier. I could pound a nail in with a rock, but a hammer makes it much easier.

There are also a good many threads regarding problems with cross-browser compatibility and CSS. I have seen lots of debugging time spent on such matters. However, I can't recall much in the way of time spent discussing debugging of tables. Granted, DW can take some time and effort to learn to use properly, but it's virtually impossible to "murder" a web site without DW giving you an error message.

[rumblepup]

As I said and still do, the reasons for not validating are ignorance and laziness. I never said that it being valid would affect SERP rankings. What I said was that most (all?) designs can be made to validate to W3C standards. I don't care how ingenious the coders were, if it didn't validate and if they were unaware of that, they were ignorant. If they were aware of it, but didn't make it validate, then yes, they were lazy. By the way, graphics will not raise a site in the SERPs.

Oh, DrTandem1, you completely misunderstood my post to this thread. No worries, I can understand why.

I was specifically talking about the fact that tables can be used in a completely valid design, one that passed W3C standards, and pass their neat little validating service.

I also said that the site in question might not be converting well becaust the visuals and graphics are not on par with another site in the same market. This is Marketing, not SERP's. I can get any site up the search rankings, you can too. But once a visitor is there, now you have to market to the user that the company is a valid and trustworthy, thus "converting" the searcher to a buyer.

As for a designer or coder being lazy or ignorant; your opinion is that the coders who don't go that extra mile to make code validate are lazy or ignorant. This your opinion, and your more than welcome to it.

I don't share it in any way. I completely and passionately believe that a site should comply with as many standards as possible, but a site that works, can be visible and functional across different browsers, and is designed to convert well, should not have to go through a complete overhaul just because some tags are slighty off or because an end bracket might be have an extra space, or a tag might be slightly malformed. The browsers, at least the major browsers, are thoughtfully designed to allow for this. As long as the the flow and ebb of a website converts, that's cool in my book.

Look, my site doesn't come anywhere near validating, however, I have a very good conversion rate, and I'm at the top of the searches. I use some css, but can't even come close to standards based xhtml. I had this same discussion with a standardista just the other day. Are his site's better than mine? Yes, from a technical aspect. But they are not as important as mine.

[iany]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Not really. One can design with CSS using DW.

never said otherwise.

but it's virtually impossible to "murder" a web site without DW giving you an error message.

Funny the number of folks who clearly must ignore the error messages then!

You are lucky if you don't come across the "murdered" sites. However, I would admit that maybe it is not really DW's fault rather the users. I still think that there are too many "designers" who think that by using DW that they are therefore de facto web designers - if you catch my drift. I work very hard to get things right (not always successfully) but am amazed at the number of people who have the effrontery to charge for the crap that they build - usually obviously having used DW.

Rant over.

[Webnauts]

Prof611 I will only tell what we do, and you can make up your mind if we can help you:

Search Engine Friendly Web Design Services - SEO Workers

and

Usability & Search Optimization Optimization - SEO Workers

Good luck,

John

[DrTandem1]

Just curious, how do you know whether a site was designed using DW? FrontPage is very obvious with its coding and labeling. I really don't see any tell tale signs with DW.

[iany]

Doesn't DW have annotation too?
Things like "<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" -->" are a bit of a giveaway. That is from a real site built by DW.

For a while there were a bunch of designs that were obviously DW inspired. Better than FP (a whole lot better) but still identifiable as DW.

Now, I am aware that the good developer will build good website regardless of Web editor. It is possible to build using FP with nary a hint that it was ever used, however, that is way too much work now.

[John Redfield]

Originally Posted by iany

I am aware of that. I have been using Evrsoft 2000/2006 for some years now (since I moved into CSS builds) and occasionally Dreamweaver in code mode. Still cannot see what the fuss is about DW. It's good but not worth the money. I used another very basic text editor before that, which gave line numbers but not very sophisticated.

As my professor taught me: you want to learn in a text editor like notepad ++ or the like... then, once you have command over the languages (html and css) a tool like dreamweaver becomes an excellent IDE, saving you time, and clients money. The point being if you understand good mark up, the hiccups of the IDE can be edited, and the IDE itself can save lots of time, making your own work efficient and cost effective.

The bottom line is different strokes for different folks... it's the human mind (creativity and vision) which make a nice website, regardless of how the code is generated.

John

[DrTandem1]

DW can help teach HTML.

[iany]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

DW can help teach HTML.

But not good markup, judging by the amount of on page JavaScript that can be seen on most DW pages.

I guess you are a DW afficionado, given that you use it to build your clients' sites.

I am not disagreeing that DW is a good editor. What I am saying is that one - it ain't worth the buying price (5 x that of FP) and two that over reliance on it can result in some real turkeys.

And on that Xmas note I wish you all the compliments of the season.

Cheers

[Nick Spence]

Originally Posted by iany

But not good markup, judging by the amount of on page JavaScript that can be seen on most DW pages.

I am new to DW. I have found it unfortunate that it writes all its JS within the page vs. a separate file. I am not sure if that is what you were meaning, but from that perspective, I would have to agree.

Originally Posted by iany

I am not disagreeing that DW is a good editor. What I am saying is that one - it ain't worth the buying price (5 x that of FP) and two that over reliance on it can result in some real turkeys.

By FP, do you mean Front Page.... Thank goodness that MS has discontinued that one. Talk about a plan for web dominance utilizing proprietary code that failed....

Merry Christmas,
~Nick

[iany]

Originally Posted by Nick Spence

I am new to DW. I have found it unfortunate that it writes all its JS within the page vs. a separate file. I am not sure if that is what you were meaning,

Precisely.

By FP, do you mean Front Page....

You got it. Although, you might not believe that I came across a commercial site that had used FP to develop its web site and it was a corker in all respects. Just goes to show, that it is the person that drives the software, not the other way around.

It is similar to photography in some respects - the quality of the lenses and other hardware has an effect on the quality of the image - but only the person behind the camera makes the picture.

[BossWebmaster]

Originally Posted by Nick Spence

I am new to DW. I have found it unfortunate that it writes all its JS within the page vs. a separate file. I am not sure if that is what you were meaning, but from that perspective, I would have to agree.

If you move code to an external .JS file when you update the Javascript in DW it knows to update the external file. I'm not sure when they made Dreamweaver smart enough to do this, I think it was in CS, at least that's the oldest version I think I tried it in.

[Nick Spence]

Originally Posted by BossWebmaster

If you move code to an external .JS file when you update the Javascript in DW it knows to update the external file.

Thanks, I will have to give that a try.

Do you know if I use the same behavior on another page, will it know that the JS already exists in an external file?

~Nick

[BossWebmaster]

I think I did know that. DW is pretty smart. Also if you copy and paste an HTML element that uses JS code, it will paste the JS code into that page also without you having to go back and copy that code as well. So it won't break if you copy a nav menu with drop-downs, but forget to copy the code that links the external JS file that makes the drop-downs work!

Now if I can only get it to stop adding new styles to my style sheet every time I type something...