TIP: Before you submit a site for review do this...

[jeanyzhu0]

The URLs are very useful and it helps to improve my website. Thanks a lot.

[tzrzbiz]

OK now I am totally confused.
We checked our site as suggested and we got back such varied results, we not sure what to do...

at http://www.sitereportcard.com

- We used our domain t-zers.net, www.t-zers.net and http://t-zers.net and we had 1 listing on Google and AOL, 137 on MSN and a bunch on All the Web... then with our "actual" URL www.tzrz.safeshopper.com with the http:// and without and got back waaay different results - 2 Search Engine Inclusions on Google & AOL

Then we tried the Search Engine Saturation Results
with our "actual" URL www.tzrz.safeshopper.com , then with the http:// and without and had aver 3400 links on Google, 216 on HotBot, and 2080 on Alta Vista ?

Checked our site at http://validator.w3.org , it couldn't find the t-zers.net domain, and using the www.tzrz.safeshopper.com it listed a whole bunch of "Priority Accessibility Errors" (mostly around our headings and colored texts) ?

Which is why we have a bunch of text links before our picture links - because someone a looong time ago from this forum suggested the same problem...


Checked http://www.instantposition.com for the first 5 of our keywords with the "www" - ZERO, nada on what we "thought" were our main keywords - one generic term came up on Google - but waaay more came up with the http://tzrz.safeshopper.com ? (all over Alta Vista, Netscape & AOL???)

So now what? is it our website, our html or just which deviation of our URL we submit?

help?

[Tim]

I recently reviewed a site that broke all of the current rules for SEO and blatantly spammed in several ways.

I think it might be helpful to point out that using hidden layers or background coloured text to stuff pages with keywords and phrases or using unnatural text is considered SPAM by most, if not all, search engines and could lead to a site being blacklisted.

If you're not sure please check with http://tool.motoricerca.info/spam-detector/

Tim

[Bliss68]

Thank you for the great sites to check out.

Not sure what I think of the Bobby one though. There was a problem with what they called a "web beacon" (external image).
This image is part of the code for my Stat Counter which is a terrific service I am not required to purchase. http://www.statcounter.com. As a small business owner I rely on these types of aids.

I revised my site recently but I will do all the "tweaking" before I submit it for review.

Thanks everyone here for the great advice - makes it easier to wade through all the other suggestions out there.

[Fat Cat]

Totally good stuff. I am a new webmaster and didn't even know this stuff existed. Thanks

Bret
www.blackwealthnow.com

[swirlsofcolor]

Thank you so much for your post. I never knew that information was available.

Amy

[Paul B]

There appears of late a number of trends in this forum which could be addressed and improve matters:

1) SPAM posts from members with only one post to their credit. Usually an affiliate sites that members take time to review, only to get no response or action from the site owner who never comes back.
Solution: make the threshold for posting a site review say 20 posts.

2) The guidelines for postings are ignored. In recent weeks there have been sites posted that ignore ever guideline anad have never been near are so abysmal that they threaten the reputation of these forum.
Solution: Re post the stickies and remove all the answers to then close the thread - there are even request for site checks and their answers in the stickies! And if the guidelines are ignored - delete the thread.

3) Revised sites on new threads. There are sites that have 2 or 3 or more threads being added to because no-one knows which is the latest version.
Solution: add to the rules, that revisions must be added to the original thread.

4) There are more and more banal reviews which do no-one any good. Like "Looks good to me" and "can't see anything wrong" when in reality the site stinks. Also comments like "I agree with the last post" and nothing more are a waste of the poster's time and our reading it.

[ran_dizolph]

Just so people know...the first post mentions flash as being exempted from validation...there's a workaround for it that is pretty easy to do that validates through alistapart.

Hope that helps!

[possum]

Being very new to all this, I am astounded at the amount of free help available and the number of people willing to assist. Thank you so much!!

I am, at present, trying to fix some of the many errors in my site. (many I don't understand yet)
I will submit for review when I have finished.

Kerry

[cf05]

Great information.
html warnings and errors seems annoying. Some suggestions are useless.