Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 67
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: May 31, 2008 - 10:31 pm
Posted By: UtahSEOpro 222 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com) my network
Category: SEO
34 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
UtahSEOpro
-
manofseo
-
martinbowling
-
theGypsy
-
Hobo
-
DavidWallace
-
TheNanny612
-
Jehochman
-
swags2804
-
jeffquipp
-
toddmintz
-
SEMDude
-
Harith
-
neelakanthap
-
mikemurray
-
pancham
-
SexySEO
-
bbcarter
-
MarketingMinefield
-
g1smd
-
planetc1
-
mike
-
stvalentine
-
SeoDesignSolutions
-
mattharman
-
Durova
-
managementaccountant
-
dobata
-
floppy
-
graywolf
-
boorishamerican
-
KenJones
-
ForestParks
-
palin
-
sammy
-
vandelay
-
nsmseo
-
yourseomentor
-
jameskm03
-
ChrisDay
-
thibaut
-
mercylivi
-
dao
-
mossie70
-
deeptimakati
-
bhartzer
-
beussery
-
thinkingserious
-
kenclark
-
gunjanpandya
-
sdobro
-
tilak
-
robgarner
-
SearchBuzz
-
MacBookForMe
-
lsbweb
-
JonClark
-
webmasterworld111
-
DJLitten
-
seoz87
-
beth
-
vangogh
-
anglemona
-
chyneclicks
-
mattfoall
-
rjonesx
-
ChrisLang
Comments
Jonathon,
great tips, especially the focus on web standards (CSS/divs for layout, tables for data, etc.), and especially the overlapping of tags within a development environment...even more so beyond HTML and getting into PHP or similar scripting -- no wonder so many legacy sites are a nightmare.
I would however suggest that there could be greater flexibility in title tags. I know it is one of those great debates, but outside of the homepage, I much prefer the site/company branding at the tail end, and focusing on prominence...
Hope to get a chance to meet you at SMX.
Identity, good point. The operative phrase on my title tag formula is "unless you are told otherwise." By default, developers should put in some sort of informative title tag when they build pages. Often we provide more detailed instructions that override the default, or we circle back later and optimize them after we've had a chance to test the site and see what keyphrases drive the most conversions.
@identity agreeing on keyword not brand prominence in title tag. I like that point tho in the article because AT LEAST it makes developers realize title tag won't be the same for every page.
We can't and don't SEOptimize title tags during design/redesign. We do it later IF the company also hired us for SEO. There are two levels of service- design without being stupid about seo, then actually seo the site. Gray line... developers don't really get all the seo ins and outs, and to engage me or SEM dept staff in the process costs money- is the client paying for it?
So this is a great, simple set of guidelines for developers.
Writting in title tags in your anchor links and alts in your images is easy and helpful as well.
I agree with identity. The first 70 characters of a title tag are crucial, where the particularity of the page has to be displayed. When you repeat yourself in the title or description tag, google, via webmaster tools, let's you know that your site "has problems". So for each page you have to start from the specific to the general description: "iPod mp3 player - Electronics & home appliances - TheComputerStore.com"
You say: "operative phrase on my title tag formula is "unless you are told otherwise."..." The default should be as expressed above, not like this. From particular to general, not otherwise.
Joomla has that structure and every single user with 2 minutes of SEO practice knows they have to override the settings and "hack" the platform. We been working on a nice hack to allow title tag input for each page, and even to make it available for the multilingual platform (that was my contribution). This hack skyrocketed positioning of a website I run in joomla, when I could use the specific to general order of display in the title tag.
And the other so very important thing robmalon has just added, that I was going to add, but delayed half an hour registering to the website... duh.... is about anchor title attribute and image alt attribute which so commonly programmers "forget" about... because it's mostly tedious job to enter them.
For the rest of the article, indeed, very useful and clear. It's nice to see people applying common sense to the practice. And it always seems to bring good results: keep it simple, keep it orderly, be consistent and coherent, care abou what you are doing, put interest in doing things neatly... those are invaluable advices to follow like commandments.
Thank you Jonnathan for helping spread the word.
---------------
* oh, and that idea of: "if the client pays for it..." it's true that SEO takes time... but I don't agree with the statement, becuase then you are saying something like: "have spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, unless the client pays separately a plus for hiring someone with good english". What's that? You are saying: "do bad programming, seo-wise (but globally too because Jonnathan's advises are about good programming habits, besically), unless the client pays more for good, clean programming"???? Do the clients know that there is such thing as "do mediocre programming / good programming" or do they believe that what they pay for is plain good programming, that you will do things as correctas they have to be?
It's unprofessional to say that, imo. You have to set the high standard, and ask for the fee accordingly, not give the client the option to downgrade your standards and allow you to do a mediocre work because they'll like to pay less. Again: we set the standard, we who know about the standard, not the client because of what he may want to pay, because they don't know the standard.
I let my clients know that I do the work in a certain way, with ceratin standards. This takes more time, so I am not a cheap designer. It's not "optional". If they want to hir a cheap designer, go knock another door. At the same time, let's be sincere, these techniques and good practices and programming habits doesn't make you "more expensive" to make you lose competitiveness... you can still have a competitive fee and do a good job... and you know what? when you do a good job and you have a higher but yet competitive fee, you get a lot more of quality clients that demand your service, you over all work less, rather then being demanded be low-quality clients with low quality works, and beng paid a low quality fee and not being recomended after because when a good programmer gets across the clients' website he says: "who did you this? so very low quality programming... mmmmm...", and that client will never recommend you to anyone. And we know that the word of mouth, p2p or b2b recommendations are crucial in our careers.
Ok, yes, it's just my opinion.
I agree with all except Item 5. I mostly do, "stuff about the page first, generic stuff last".
Separation of business process/functionality from the layout/design is crucial, as is the separation of content and design within the pages themselves.
Come on guys, it takes 3 minutes to create a title tag SUPERIOR to
company - category - item or the reverse (regardless of the scope). Really, you guys are hustlers.
Be legit,
Jeff
@jeffjames yeah, maybe for you, but for those who don't know SEO? Especially programmers, they want something formulaic. You need some guidelines to give them.
Progress not perfection... move toward the ideal by giving team members what they need to do a better job at fundamental SEO than they currently do.
@giselagiardino Good points, I don't disagree with you, but we do have clients who want design, don't want SEO, and our designers and programmers are not as good at SEO as we are in the SEM dept... so... I think it's unavoidable that we'll have clients who won't get SEO they didn't pay for.
Your points are pretty idealistic- you're welcome to take that business approach- start with ideals, don't compromise on your recommendations or your price, and see how many clients you end up with, it may work great for you...
But the reality at our interactive agency is we have and maintain long-term relationships with a lot of businesses in and out of town. It's a political reality at times that you must compromise- relationships are complicated, especially in a town where everybody knows and works with everybody else! Not all our clients understand the value or cost of SEO- education and sales take time.
In the meantime, we can only do so much SEO for clients that don't pay for it. Guidelines like the ones in this sphinned post are the best we can do for them. Over time, they don't see the same results as clients that get SEO, and they wise up and pay for it.
If somebody has us recoding a 500 page website, the 3 minutes per page to think up better titles represents 25 hours. The person who's best at coding is not usually the person best at thinking up titles. Therefore, I want a basic titles installed by default. A basic title tag is better than no title tage, or all identical title tags. Then we prioritize what pages we think can and should rank, and tweak those titles. Often when adjusting titles we also read through the content and fix that at the same time. After all, the titles need to accurately reflect what the page says. Titles are really an issue for the copy writer, not the coder.
So many good thoughts on this subject. This looks like an opportunity for a follow up article. :-)
This is all great stuff to do, but it won't help search engine rankings. (The coding/layout, etc.)
Owch! Jill, if a site is broken, slow or otherwise performs badly, that will turn off visitors. Unhappy visitors represent a lost marketing opportunity and eventually result in many fewer links to the site. Search engines want to show the best sites. Any sort of quality improvement that boosts visitor satisfaction will ultimately have a positive impact on rankings.
Yes, broken or so slow that it can't be spidered, I agree. But otherwise, no, I completely disagree.
Validated code, CSS, all that stuff, makes no difference to search engines.
Good to do though for the other reasons you've stated.
These are tactics for assuring that a website works correctly, and gets fully indexed. If a site has thousands of pages, code bloat can cause some of the pages not to be indexed.
Even if a site is moderately slow, that can have a negative impact on visitors. They won't recommend the site or link to it as much, and that means lower rankings over time.
You're now talking about indirect consequences. I'm talking about direct consequences, of which there aren't any.
Ask you buddy Vanessa Fox. She's said the same in interviews.
Jehochman, the bottom line is your suggestions have everything to do with web development and almost nothing to do with SEO. The only thing that matters (TITLE tag) you got wrong - You want Keyword first company name second. Opening with company name is not only bad for user experience its also not effective SEO.
There's no bright line between SEO and web development. The fate of your rankings is inseparable from the quality of your site.
As for branding vs. rankings, I will address this in a future column. It's obviously a hot topic.
the whole "title name - page name" thing is tricky big household name brands can get away with that, everyone else should reverse it , IMHO.
oh and if you have to ask if you are big enough to do it you probably aren't.
But the quality of your site has very little to do with it's backend code.
Of course most would agree that anything in extremes is going to be counterproductive. e.g.., EXTREMELY slow loading page...people will leave, etc.
But for the most part, if your page shows up as it's supposed to in all web browsers, that's plenty for Google to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Can someone elaborate on #8 for me?
"Too many files in one directory makes things hard to find. Use subdirectories."
This is just an internal thing right? I guess I am just looking for the signifigance here...
@BoorishAmerican, will you have fries with that? Yes, #8 is for the developer who has to maintain your site. If your files are a disorganized mess, every little change to the code may end up costing you two or three times more. That's money you could better spend on other things.
Oh, Jill! The quality of the site, and ability to maintain it economically has everything to do with the backend code. Messed up code can make routine maintenance much more expensive, which saps budget from better purposes. Also, slow page loads (12 sec instead of 6 sec) can be very noticeable to the user, and may cut down on total page views and conversions.
@Graywolf, lots of small companies are "big brands" in their own industry. Have you ever heard of Adventus Group? Probably not, but every environmental engineer has.
Right. But it won't effect your search engine rankings. Not directly, at least.
I am simply taking issue with this, Jonathan, because I'm tired of some alleged SEO companies out there who are forcing clients to change their code telling the client it will improve their rankings when it won't. (Not talking about you, of course, as I know you wouldn't do that.)
But it's a myth that needs debunking. If they're redesigning anyway, then sure, clean up the code, but if that's all you do, don't expect rankings improvement in the search engines.
"The fate of your rankings is inseparable from the quality of your site."
That depends on how you define SEO. Since greater visibility is tied to higher rankings I suppose you might also claim Netflix running commercials on CBS is SEO.
Sure, a faster loading page may improve user experience, but there are a ton of other stuff that pull more weight in that department than clean code.
I'm not sure if you have SEO clients, but if you did have clients you would encounter situations where a client chases after code tweaks instead of creating link magnets and getting them seen. Many clients want the quick and easy - and creating a great product is often times much harder and more expensive than tweaks some SEOs sell, like moving JS to external files, getting rid of TABLEs, etc, etc, etc. Those clients want to believe optimizing/cleaning up code will lead to rank increases. They don't.
About the only thing you need to worry about as far as on-page SEO is concerned is page TITLE and keywords in content. That's all. As for site structure, about the only SEO factor there is internal link layout.
Forget wasting time cleaning up code; put away your protractors - build a site worth bookmarking. Otherwise, link building will be like smashing your head repeatedly against a brick wall.
@Jehochman I think the exact same thing, on site SEO and front-end web development are tie together. Built better website following the best practises and you get a good start for onsite SEO. I'll add to that following basic accessibility and usability guidelines are major assets... As a Front-end Developer, for me its all sounds like doing good front-end job.
I'm always amused by the often distant point of view from more marketing people and more developer people on that... :)
Exactly. Which is why I really hate to see more articles like this one being published. They cause people to focus on the wrong things, at least in terms of if they're interested in SEO.
Let me give a concrete example of something that should have no direct impact on SEO: placing your menus in server side include files.
1. You come up with great keyword research and figure out how to redo the site's link structure for better rankings.
2. Ask the client to implement changes.
3. Wait eight months, and they still can't implement because the code is such an overwhelming mess, and they don't know how to get the job done.
4. FAIL.
Versus:
1. Audit site and identify flaws in how it has been built.
2. Fix shoddy code using a developer who follows these principles.
3. Perform keyword research and recommend improvements.
4. Two days later the improvements are done, because only a handful of files need to be edited.
5. Check results, refine strategy, rinse and repeat until you get the desired results.
6. SUCCESS.
Which path do you prefer? This article is about blowing away the roadblocks that prevent sites from becoming as good as they can be.
{yawn}
I can't believe we are STILL creating content like this. Every six months or so I pop back in here to see what's happening and I am still presented with the same old garbage.
I can't believe this guy actually lists "unique titles and meta" as a tip ...AGAIN.
Worse, is all the link baiters throwing out mad props to the author
"great tips"
"well done"
"good job"
Bull#@$! - I could pull an eighth-grader to the side, give him some links on basic optimization, and he could write a school book report that would be as solid and informative as this, yet another, top X list of SEO tips, secrets, techniques - blah blah blah
Go ahead SEO cliques ...go ahead an tell me how aggressive or negative I am, but this is getting stupid. Every year, the SAME THING. Don't try to play it off as writing for the newbie, because that's already been done...
...like, a thousand times already.
You are just regurgitating the same ol' thing. over and over and over and over....
And I agree with Jill that you are flat-out wrong about server side includes. First of all, the way you explain it is all jacked and makes me wonder if you are even using the right terminology, but a spider does not know an include from static text - includes are for site organization, not SEO.
In fact, brainiacs, I can site other SEO PROFESSIONALS in these same SMX cliques writing articles that server side includes are BAD for SEO because of the page content repetition.
So which is it you SEO geniuses?
What a joke - dude above was right - a bunch of hustlers.
...lastly - is it me - or is Sphinn suuuuper slow. Especially articles with lots of comments.
Using Firefox, it can take over a minute for a Sphinn article to fully load ...all the while locking up the browser.
I agree that getting the HTML right won't improve your search engine positions, but getting it wrong could hurt them. Especially broken links. That's why I almost never use relative URLs when I'm coding. There's too much chance I'll be moving the page or copying & pasting text later without checking the URLs. Maybe your software will automatically update the relative URLs, but mine won't. I think that having working URLs is more important than shaving off a few bits from the page size.
Jonathan, you can spin it however you'd like at this point, but your original article seemed to be suggesting a direct correlation, and imo, that's providing incorrect information to people.
In the article you said this:
And that's simply wrong.
I was going to ignore this thread all together cuz we're buds and all, but I saw (I think on Twitter) where you asked people to get into it with you here, so...well...I did!
Nuthin, personal!
@surftrip
yeah you come off sounding a little jaded and cynical, but that's what I enjoyed about your comment. well said. This is like 1999 SEO, when people used SSI instead of php... remember the .shtml extension? :-)
@surftrip well said
@chrish LOL
"yeah you come off sounding a little jaded and cynical, but that's what I enjoyed about your comment. well said. This is like 1999 SEO, when people used SSI instead of php... remember the .shtml extension?"
In 99 PHP was new. In fact I was learning programming and the teacher told me to concentrate on Perl and ASP, because at that time the support for PHP likely was a computer under somebodies desk working out of their home.
I totally agree with Jill! I used to validate and jump through hoops. When I stopped it had no affect at all. IMO, most of what's in that article is someones pet peaves for web development. All the code affects rank is IMO, an SEO urban myth that just won't go away because it's allowed to propegate unabated by authors that need to publish so... a borderline article that is a waste of time starts lookin' pretty good! Anyone who thinks removing a few table tags improves SEO is IMO, smoking something because there is absolutely no way to know that with any degree of certainty. Good HTML code should be a goal I just don't think good code is needed for SEO. If it renders it rocks!
Jonathon,
Great tips! I battle with most of your tips on a daily basis with clients. Just one question, #7, why use relative rather then absolute? I've heard absolute is better then relative.
Thanks,
Beth
Argh! Can't we all just get along!
Yes, I agree that the article consists of common sense basic GUIDELINES! It's not rocket science, all I read was adhere to good design/development principles and life will be good.
If you are working with a team of SMEs that consist of designers, programmers, and content providers you all better be on the same page or you'll get a pile of pooh! And if you expect your company to maintain a large scale web application you better design it based on sound design guidelines so others can pick it up and start maintaining and expanding it. You'd be surprised what a little clean up and streamlining can do to be better indexed.
@Jill, quote:
"In the article you said this:
And that's simply wrong."
Huh? I'm currently working on a site that does choke when it comes to indexing the site due to crap back-end programming and crummy front-end design. Indexing can definitely be optimized by developing a good solid architecture and programming - and why not reap the rewards of a good site with your audience?
I agree with dgsiemer in that broken links can be detrimental and I want to add that pages that take forever and a day to load, orphan pages, and not having specific pages blocked from indexing can hurt you, too. Just don't get carried away with the little things such as unnecessary table tags, etc. - just create a good site and don't be a lazy developer!