Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
After much sole searching, I have seriously come to the conclusion that as
far as google goes the best type of seo is no seo at all!

All these guys that have done this and that are now waiting for the axe to
fall if it hasn't already.

I have said many times in this NG that to the best way to get a good rated
site is to build a good site with good structure and interesting and unique
information - that is the best seo any one can do in the long term.

Google is leading the way on "spammy" site removal and if successful (which
I believe they will be) the other search engines will be forced to follow.

Maybe the days of seo are over? And the days of good site design are back?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I disagree.

I'm not.

Yes - in parts. If you have good content and a good site, you can heavily
improve your rankings and with it your traffic by doing some seo-work. we've
advanced from 400 visits/day to 18000 visits/day within a year - just by
optimizing our site and tweaking it a little. seo kind of made the
difference ;)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

they're not interested in removing spam-sites - if they were, they had
removed all those simple javascript-doorway-pages already, but they don't.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

those days are gone forever - more or less. you can't run for site design
unless you have a certain budget - on my regular customers, i can't spend
two hours to get a page layouted perfectly, they won't pay the price. seo
will still kick it, because it's a quality-shift. you got a couple of
hundred visitors per day or a couple of thousand - seo is what we're talking


Quoted text here. Click to load it
You may disagree - but applying this philosophy has got my site for 2 major
search phrases to #2#2 on google, #3#3 on yahoo and #3#3 on msn (this is out
of some 2 millions pages - so it is not obscure or particularly minor)


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, still there is no proof, you could not have gotten that positions by
doing plain old seo. Next to it, it's, from my point of view, not the number
of pages found for a certain searchterm but the competitiveness. And of
course I'm not denying that seo alone will not serve your needs and good
content is always a big part of the cake.


 > John Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

In some ways you're right, but I'm always astonished by how many people
don't understand about titles, headings and content.  Even now!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Heck, they never left.  Content does matter to search engine spiders.

Laurie Mann
Findable Sites


John Dingley wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What type of sites are you talking about? Commercial or information free
ones? If you're talking informational free ones than seo was never
really much of a factor. But if you're talking commercial ones you
couldn't be more wrong about it. If anything seo'ing of commercial sites
will need to be increased as more people catch on about how to do it.
The reason why non seo won't work with commercial sites is that nobody
is about to link their plumber's website for free because websites by
commercial plumbers are boring as hell. Adult commercial sites on the
other hand can be interesting but way too embarissing for the average
person to admit to the world they are looking at so will also never get
linked on people's sites. Commercial sites basically consist of boring
sites no matter how much or how well done the content is and are
un-linkable other than two plumbers exchanging links and adult
commercial are way too taboo and thus are un-linkable except again for
two commercial adult sites exchanging links. That only leaves SEO as
their only means of being successful, there's no other way.

Informational sites on the other hand tend to be interesting when done
well with interesting content and people will readily add a link to them
on their own websites without even asking for a link exchange in return.
It's part of the reason, the main part, that no SEO is required here.
The other part is I do believe that google has most of the SEO backdoors
tightly shut on informational site serps. For example I have an
informational site that is a bowling site and it did great before I even
knew a thing about SEO. I tried seo'ing it to see if I could get it to
page one of bowling and the highest I can get it so far is page 4 and
it's usually on page 6. using the same seo tactics for my commercial
sites easily gets them on page one of their serp. I haven't worked on my
bowling site in a while but I'll bet if I had time to and added lots of
great content to it that it would go higher in its serp. If I added more
great content to my commercial sites it wouldn't help them one bit in
their serps. For example I have a few sites that are pretty much blank
with only a meta title, a picture, and an enter link for some of my
commercial sites and they do great. Try that with an information site
and you'd be lucky to be listed at number 900.

So I agree that the best seo for information sites is no seo but not so
for commercial sites which are the sites messing up search engines and
creating all the spam and irrelevancy problems not the informational


Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My site is commercial with competition.


On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 07:18:36 +0000, SEO Dave wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Less time analyzing Sam's sites, more time analyzing mine please!

I'm getting jealous of all the attention you're giving to Sam.   ;-)



On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 06:36:58 GMT, Will Spencer

Quoted text here. Click to load it

LOL, but have you noticed my analysis isn't very helpful to Sam :-))

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Here goes then.

1. Javascript all your affiliate links, I use-

<script>document.write('<a hre'+'f="htt'+'p://"
target="_blank">anchor text</a>');</script>

You can add as many of these '+' as you like.

Be aware 10% of visitors and Google won't see the ads.

You might have a problem with this one if the top bit is accurate (you
can't edit source!!)-

     Any alteration will disqualify all traffic        
     Copyright (c) 2000,2001 WebPower/SafeSexPlus/ClickCash (since 1995)
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
HREF=" "
OnMouseOver="window.status='Click here for Clickcash'; return true"
src=" "
height="60" width="468" border=0 alt="Clickcash"></A>')
<A HREF=" "
OnMouseOver="window.status='Click here for Clickcash'; return true"
src=" "
height="60" width="468" border=0 alt="Clickcash"></A>
<!-- END HTML Source -->

Try wrapping the whole lot in

<script>document.write('               code goes here

The above might not work since it's already using the same format JS,
so stick it all on a separate page and refer to it via a IFRAME.

If you haven't used a IFRAME before I've used one extensively on my
literature sites i.e so the pages
(where there are up to 60 links) isn't part of every page, it's
referred to via this code-

<iframe src="pages.html" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="170"
height="375" title="pages">

Really useful for bits you don't want indexing, but do want to show to
visitors. I used it as it reduces each page by 4KB, multiply that by
50,000 and it's worth it :-))

You could also use a IFRAME for blocks of ADs, I suppose you could use
it for single ADs, but it will get messy.

Doh, just realised the above is a adult affiliate site. Doubt you'll
get many referrals with a SEO FAQ, it's bad enough with adult sites!

2. If all your H1 headers are centred you can replace this-

<div class="header">
<HR color="#A96667">
href=" /">
<HR color="#A96667">


<div class="header">
<HR color="#A96667">
href=" /">
<HR color="#A96667">

By adding this "   text-align: center;  " to -

div.header {
  position         : absolute;
  top              : 0px;
  clear            : none;
text-align: center;       (this bit added)

To your css file.

3. If you want to get rid of this table-

<TABLE cellPadding=5>

Use divs with float left-


<div class="float">

<div class="float">

<div class="float">


div.float {
    float: left;
    text-align: center;

That's about it and other than the ad links the others are minor and
something to do if you like to keep code to a minimum just in case it

You've done most of what I'd do, so looking very good.

What made you go with a CSS design and absolute positioning?

I've been looking for a hack to allow the sort of structure you have
used with absolute positioning, but where it doesn't break when you
resize the browser.

i.e. when you reduce the browser size with your site it overlaps
because you have used percentage widths for the left, middle and right

Apparently this is going to be solved in CSS3, but that doesn't give
me a solution now. Best I can get is a static design, same lay out,
but the widths are fixed (pixel perfect).

I did find a fluid solution (example 5) IF you
don't use absolute positioning, but the point of using CSS (for me) is
so I can serve the content first.

Hey Sam, have you discovered CSS yet or are you still using fonts and
lots of tables :-))

-- /


SEO Dave wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unlike you Dave I actually do all my html freehand and don't need to
rely on page wizards to do CSS for me. Html works fine for SEO and looks
good too so I see no reason to switch to CSS as it doesn't give a boost
to the serps and doesn't look any better than html when it's done right.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

[non-SEO topic thoughts]
CSS is only for on page appearances and works hand-in-hand with HTML
in a way; such as eliminating <font> tags when you can define, in a
style sheet, for what kind of fonts and size for those fonts used in
certain areas.

I handcode HTML also but use CSS stylesheets on all my sites just for
presentational appearance of the contents [text and such]. It may or
may not give a boost to SERPs but it does tighten up the page's source
- which makes it easier when editing. CSS has a number of pluses in my
book for site design & maintenance thoughts alone. But then I lean to
HTML strict versus HTML transitional - so that may be a consideration?

I don't absolute position things, as Dave described he does, but have
decreased my site's files sizes considerablely [sp?] with a stylesheet
in place. He prefers pixel perfect - I am more dare devilish and avoid
pixels when possible in the layouts [may pixel define a smaller
'column' but will leave the other more fluid as an example when i may
define a pixel size to something in the layout] and font sizes.

I admit I still uses tables for layout - but only when I feel the
content looks better in a table layout versus a tableless layout. 2 of
my sites are tableless layouts while two others still use tables - all
four are fluid in design. CSS tableless layouts naturally break at a
certain point - but I can take my screen to less than half-size before
that happens. Which at that width even my table layouts would also be
affected by that viewing area size. *shrug*

As with anything though - CSS benefits can be hindered by the person
trying to use it.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sure a benefit of CSS for SEO is in filesize reduction, so the spider
only gets served the good stuff, not the formatting.

The other day I SEO'd a site from tables/javascript into css and was
gratified to find the new pages were on averate 1/6th the size of the old
ones - and looked exactly the same.

I'm telling you lot this, because no-one else will understand the joy that
brings me ;-)

Clare Associates Ltd /
01822 835802


On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:03:01 +0100, Victoria Clare

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's difficult to say for sure, but we do know smaller file size
reduces bandwidth and load speed which will keep more visitors happy.
So even if it has zero benefits to SEO it's worth doing.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

LOL,  I get the same joy when you've started with a nice looking site,
but the code is filled with so much junk (table/font soup) and then
after hours/days of CSS tweaking and testing the code is clean and a
lot easier to understand!

No one I know understands what it means either, I feel so lonely and
misunderstood :-(

Quoted text here. Click to load it

-- /


On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:07:24 +0000, SEO Dave wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think it means FrontPage.  ;-)



On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:59:35 GMT, Will Spencer

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It usually does.



On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:49:21 +0000,  wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Once you get the hang of CSS, I guarantee that you will fall in love with

It's the best thing since shtml!



Quoted text here. Click to load it

As you know I hand code all my pages including the CSS. There are no
CSS wizards that can create the sort of designs I make, though feel
free to try to prove me wrong.

For example Dreamweavers design view chokes on the site in the sig,
though I now use Dreamweaver for major updates (saves time).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or read as, I haven't learnt CSS so it must be rubbish.

Sam, do you remember when you believed Blogs ranked highly because of
the special CSS they used :-))))))))

Message 11-

Sam Quote January 22nd 2004-

"There's something about the type of CSS code used at blogspot blogs
that google likes."

Feel free to deny it like you did when you sent me those threatening

I laughed my socks off that day!

Then there was the time you thought having the date on a page got it
high rankings, another "look how well blogs are doing. They have dates
on every page therefore dates results in good SERPs".

Think that one was by email.

You are a laugh a minute, or maybe just a big joke :-)))

-- /


On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:59:24 +0000, SEO Dave wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah... but I am *slightly* less hard-headed.  (I am going to show this
post to my fiance', who will not believe me.)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

JavaScript breaks *some* affiliate links.  On most of my sites, I've
converted the hundreds of Amazon links to JavaScript.

Is this to "preserve PR"?   On a few of my sites, I have converted all
non-reciprocal links to JavaScript.  I converted thousands of links and
saw no rise in PR/SERPS/traffic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Mmmm... Javascript link format has been:

<a href="javascript:var' ')">

I like the + trick.  I wonder if is has any effect?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sure they will cry if they can't see the ads.  ;-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I use an IFRAME for my free quotes service (free firearms quotes
or free economics quotes).

What is the benefitof using an IFRAME here, as opposed to just using
JavaScript and a shared HTML <include>?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't adult sites need affiliate programs too?  :)

This programs pays $40-$80 per signup, and 10% "downstream".

The program has adult and non-adult product offerings.

But... I should admit that you are correct.  To date I have had no success
with this program.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Umm... I don't know any better?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, this reduces down to 800x600.  If you reduce it one pixel more,
everything starts to fall apart.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I like to take advantage of the 25" Sony Triniton monitor I invested in.

Therefore, width=% works for me.  20% is very nice at 1920x1440.  :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'll take a look at that too.




On 6/7/04 9:45 am, Will Spencer wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't do that. If you try to create new windows using, then a
lot of browsers will ignore you completely.

If they changed this command to "window.createAnnoyingPopup()" then perhaps
people wouldn't use it so much.

But is there REALLY any point in using Javascript links? I find that the WWW
looks much less annoying with Javascript turned off and GIF animations set
to "no looping". I have a feeling that "PR leakage" is just a myth.

Philip Ronan
(Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)


On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:45:04 GMT, Will Spencer

Quoted text here. Click to load it


It is to preserve PR. Mathematically it's been shown PR leaks, if it
didn't PR would make very little sense since you could link to 100
sites from all your pages and not reduce the PR of your site!!

The most likely reason you didn't see a difference is the difference
between PR4 and PR5 (etc...) is a lot. If you had a low to medium PRX
page to start with removing a lot of links isn't going to push you up
enough to see it via the toolbar. Same as adding one PR5 link to an
existing PR5 page is unlikely to take it to PR6, but if the page is a
high PR5 it might be enough to make the difference.

Also I assume there were many more 'normal' links compared to ad
links. Even if it's 1 ad link to 10 'normal' links, removing all the
ad links via JS will only conserve roughly 10% of the PR.

Is it worth it? yes.

Is it going to result in massive increases in PR and SERPs? Highly
unlikely, but every little bit helps.

It's one more of those things that if you can get it right you should,
but don't loose sleep over it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it' ')">

Last time I checked both are ignored by Google, but since Google seems
to be trying to read javascript links it makes sense to go
complicated. The second one is a standard link with URL bit JS. Google
reads it as-

<a href="DOESN'T READ THIS BIT"> FAQ</a>

So does it ignore the link bit or does it say that's a link, going to
"DOESN'T READ THIS BIT" and sends the PR to no where??

I made an error in a link like this (space between the javascript, so
java script) and it was indexed (findable in google) so must of leaked

Quoted text here. Click to load it

More complicated, we'll see in the future as to which form of JS gets
treated as a link first (with my luck someone at Google is reading
this and thinking we'll show him :-)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unless you link directly to the page with a standard link (like I do
with my literature site) the page shouldn't be treated as part of the
page and shouldn't be found/indexed by Google.

So any links from the IFRAME page won't be treated as a link from the
main page, so won't leak PR or negatively effect the pages SERPs in
other ways (you are adding non themed links to a page when you add
standard ad links, this must have an impact on SERPs).

For example this page
is shown as part of the 39 pages of this book as
you view it with a browser.

A search for William Shakespeare The Tempest shows the second URL in
the top 10.

If you view more results for my domain you eventually find the
pages.html page showing it's treated as a separate page. It's found
because I also link to the pages.html page directly from all 39 pages
of that book (do the same for all books). You wouldn't do this with
affiliate links.

Viewing the cache of any of the 39 pages shows the pages.html page as
part of the page, but it's only as a IFRAME and so is a direct link to
my site (it's not Googles cache of pages.html)..

Searching for - "Pages Of this Ebook" Shakespeare

Gives 55 results, the ones from my site (almost 50 of them) are all
the pages.html pages of the various books on the site. If the IFRAME
was treated as part of the page you would expect to find many more
results (hundreds) and some would be individual book pages.

This proves the content of a IFRAME isn't treated as part of the page.
So even if Google does find it as long as you have added no direct
links to it the page will likely be PR0 and so transfer no PR to the
affiliate site.

You should see the benefits of the above to using <include> for
affiliate links.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, I've signed up for plenty of them and have made quite a bit of
cash (get US cheques for up to $1000 at a time).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I shy away from these, the amount of signups is very, very, very low.
I've made over 90% of affiliate fees from the free adult ebooks that
you get $1 per signup. Was getting lots of signups from my 5000+
Lingerie site visitors a day last year, dropped of since the Google

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not surprised.

The example I posted might help you with that. Look at the background
image use for details, I've not looked at it in enough detail to be
sure, but looks possible.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

LOL, I feel small with my 19" monitor set at 1152 x 864 now :-(

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No problem.

-- /

Site Timeline