Quote:
Originally Posted by mafia_man
Load times are taken into account on crawls so larger filesize means a smaller score by google.
This is only a recent development.
I also don't get the 'tools' argument. Markup should be seperated by presentation, there's no debate.
If the argument was say Python vs Ruby vs PHP for web development the 'tools' argument holds strength.
|
Load time is a broad area with more factors.
- response time (you request, wait for response)
- download time. The time to actually receive all data after getting a response
- Rendering time. How long does your browser take to execute the data and build a page.
These things have very little to do with tables or css. A all CSS page is not so small
that it's delivery time is significant versus tables, because of high speed internet.
I'm not aware that browsers need more time to render tables over CSS.
Further, it is only a dream that google will place a "clean" design higher in the results.
Google is looking for content and relative data because that's what made them
the king. Pushing more relevant sites down the search results because they use tables
would be counter to google's ultimate goal(more relevancy, more content).
Plain and simple : CSS versus tables is not an argument that any google employee
would even consider. Google doesn't want to get into "regulating" design, they are doing
exactly the opposite....trying to decipher any and every design.
Example : Building a 100% flash site in the old days would be an SEO problem but
google has joined up with Adobe and can now break a flash object down completely
and grab all the information for search results.
SEO is a real thing but it is also full of speculation and plain false hoods.