«

"Ben C" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 2010-05-11, Jenn <> wrote:
> [...]
>> Thus far I've seen many people make suggestions as to how to do that
>> page for the photos, and no one has an answer and nothing has worked
>> that anyone else has suggested. I'm beginning to think all this talk
>> about perfect pages is just smoke in the wind. How long should it
>> take to find a solution? Do this.. don't do that.. if you do that it
>> won't work if you resize the font .. if you do the other thing it
>> won't work in such and such browser. You could take weeks only to
>> find out there is no perfect solution. How is doing it your way
>> better, or faster, or improved in any way or how I would do it if you
>> can't even agree on a solution that will be perfect? It's kind of
>> frustrating to watch someone ask a question and there be no solution
>> at all.
>
> The idea is not to have a perfect solution to a given problem, but to
> have the right problem in the first place.
>
> Simple clear layouts that tolerate resizing of font and viewport and
> don't have unnecessary Javascript usually result in pages that are
> easier to make, much nicer to read, and are also better-looking if
> you're good at that kind of design.
>
> The difficulty may be just making that complicated enough for the boss
> to understand.


Well.. some bosses don't want to know .. they just want fast results.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
news:hscjna$cg5$...
> Jenn wrote:
>>> Learn instead of arguing. Stop arguing about subjects for which you
>>> have no experience.
>>
>> I do learn every day. I simply don't see a need to validate pages
>> when no on I know of but the people here do it. Perhaps, some point
>> in the future I may change my mind, but not right now.

> Please feel free to continue in your 1995 mode, while much of the rest
> of the world evolves. Just don't attempt to stifle the learning process
> of others who wish to learn. Some newbie might find your posts and think
> it is okay to do what you do, when it isn't.

I learn all the time, but I'm not opposed to using older techniques that
work, too. Don't throw away the old techniques just because there are new
ones. I'll continue to learn as I work.



--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

In article <>,
sendmecopies says...
> In message <dorayme->
> dorayme <> wrote:
> > In article <hsc4tm$soa$>,
> > "Jenn" <> wrote:
>
> >> "Jeremy J Starcher" <> wrote in message
> >> news:cLfGn.16669$_...
> >> > On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:43:38 -0500, Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> > And ... as others have said ... the most important visitor to your
> >> > website doesn't have Javascript .....
> >>
> >>
> >> Google is not the most important visitor to your website... your target
> >> customer is.
>
> Your target customer can't find the site if it's not on google.
>
> >> Google will adapt and crawl your site just fine if you remember to include
> >> keywords within your page and not just in the meta tag.
>
> > Yes, good point.
>
> It is NOT a 'good point'. Please stop encouraging her ingorance.
>
> NO search engine uses keywords.
>

Keywords 'within the page'? Thought ALL search engines do that.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

In article <dorayme->,
says...
> In article <hsc2dr$qo4$>,
> "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > "Jonathan N. Little"<> wrote in message
> > > news:hsc0k5$c0j$...
> > >> Jenn wrote:
> >
> > >> Why? Maybe in 1995 that would suffice:
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_el...ords_attribute
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What's you're point? Gigantic websites such as the news links I posted like
> > > msnbc.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc... all use keywords on their pages. I'm
> > > sure I could find many many more sites like those just by doing a google
> > > search.. which would also mean that those sites are crawled by google very
> > > well.
> >
> > They may but is google as a factor to index the sites or just the
> > content? Your posistion was that you could use keywords in lieu of
> > content which is wrong because search engines have stop using keywords
> > since the abuse back in the late 90's.
>
> What is important is good meaningful headings in the body text,
> using words in the opening paragraphs of a page that are
> appropriate to the website and quite natural but which are also
> likely to be asked for in searches. Clients can place paid ads if
> they want to get ahead of the pack, meta keywords don't much work
> these days, Jonathan is right.
>
>

And don't forget the meta title and description. They are definitely
required.

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

In article <hscelt$sjm$>,
areswhatthisemailisanyway says...
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
> news:hscdrk$qp7$...
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> "freemont" wrote"
> >>> Jenn writ:
> >>>> This link was provided by beauregard...
> >>>> http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html Meta Keywords:
> >>>> <META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement"> The Keyword
> >>>> tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to ignore
> >>>> it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
> >>>> they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
> >>>> eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other
> >>>> search engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider
> >>>> the tag if it has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should
> >>>> have a limited number of keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a
> >>>> good range.
> >>>
> >>> It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or
> >>> possibly dwindling interest in presenting information to you.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present
> >>> on their page. What a joke.
> >>>
> >>> So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake
> >>> oil to suckers.
> >>>
> >>> Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you,
> >>> ok?
> >>
> >> Win? I can't find any definitive information on the subject that
> >> set's [sic] it in stone one way or another, and links provided to me
> >> by other people such as beauregard even present conflicting
> >> information to his own argument.
> >
> > You quoted, from above: "Webmasters flooded it with every keyword they
> > could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to eventually
> > render this tag worthless."
> >
> > What part of *worthless* is too difficult for you to understand? Why is
> > it you continue to debate on topics you don't know anything about?
> >
>
> Does this text below that comment mean anything at all?
> >>>It is still used by other
> >>> search engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider
> >>> the tag if it has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should
> >>> have a limited number of keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a
> >>> good range.
>
>
>
>

How about this:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...-does-not-use-
keywords-meta-tag.html

--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

"Jenn" <> wrote in message
news:hsceha$sau$...
>
>
> "rf" <> wrote in message
> news:_wiGn.24220$...
>>
>> "Jenn" <> wrote in message
>
>>> Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it as
>>> being practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing dynamic
>>> content, imo.
>>
>> I'll answer the question I asked a couple of minutes ago.
>>
>> Yes, you obviously are a bloody troll.
>
>
> Are you incapable of having a discussion with someone who has a different
> point of view from you without resorting to derogatory remarks?

No I am not. Not at all.

But I am incapable of putting up with a proven bloody idiot.

As everybody else is beginning to say, stay back there in 1995 when you
apparently switched your brain off. The rest of us are quite happy in this
century *without* your stupid ideas polluting usenet.

<plonk>

Peter wrote:

> And don't forget the meta title and description. They are definitely
> required.

<title> ... </title> isn't a meta element; and the meta description,
though possibly helpful, is not required.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

On Tue, 11 May 2010 23:09:05 +0000, rf writ:

> <plonk>

Be prepared to re-plonk at least twice.

(BT,DT)
--
⁂ "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> ※freemont※ <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

freemont wrote:

> rf writ:
>> <plonk>
>
> Be prepared to re-plonk at least twice.
>
> (BT,DT)

Don't you have the Multi-Plonk Extension??? LOL

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

In article <hsc69t$1hh$>,
"Jenn" <> wrote:

> "dorayme" <> wrote in message
....
> > What is important is good meaningful headings in the body text,
> > using words in the opening paragraphs of a page that are
> > appropriate to the website and quite natural but which are also
> > likely to be asked for in searches. Clients can place paid ads if
> > they want to get ahead of the pack, meta keywords don't much work
> > these days, Jonathan is right.
> >
>
>
> I will have to disagree with you on the meta keywords not working these
> days...

That is fair enough. I have not conducted my own trials or
investigated the matter deeply, I am just going on trust from
what I have read and what some people here have said.

The fact is that I am sometimes a bit of a sucker, too soft
hearted and willing to be taken for a ride by other forceful
characters. I let them push me about a bit so that when the Final
Judgement Day comes, He will say,

"Now dorayme* you have been pushed around all your
life and have tried in vain to help others (though
I note that plain packaging for cigarettes is
going to finally become law soon in Australia and
that you advocated this over 20 years ago). So I
am going to operate 'The first shall be last and
the last first' algorithm that My Geeky Son mentioned in
passing in Galilee one day."

Bob is surely going to be my uncle then. Keywords, shmeewords,
what does it matter in the bigger scheme of things? <g>


------------
* See how even He spells my name with a small d?

--
dorayme