Business: Who says CSS is good for SEO?

[fallenmuffin]

I hear it a lot. Blog after blog, tip after tip. Pure CSS is the way to go for good SEO (I think that rhymed). I have many websites, 28 I think. Most are Pure CSS (tableless designs) with much thought to div order. Some have tables but highly rely on CSS. Those sites rank pretty well.

However, my best ranking site. #4 out of 8 million results, #2 for another keyword out of 7.5 million results is old school HTML. I'm not talking HTML 1.1 I'm talking big fucking heavy HTML. Font tags around every thing. Tables out the ass.

I put more effort in SEO into the CSS sites then I do this one. Not over SEOing it at all. I just pick my keywords more carefully for anchor tags, which sites I allow to link me etc. This one I'm pretty picky on who links me and where my traffic comes from but I don't care what the anchor text is...

Debate.

[StuartD]

This is an example... a site I started once upon a time but abandoned pretty quick because I was too busy, but I set it up as an example of some css advantages.

How we see it:
http://www.ratemypaysite.com

How search engines see it:
http://www.ratemypaysite.com/?nocss=1

The differences are easy to see. There are many other benefits as well.

[Marshal]

when you said "good rank", did you mean google/yahoo/msn(live)?

all the contemporary search engines would make no difference, unless you have 1MB+ of stylesheet code in HTML file...

anyway, it's easier for you to maintain the pages if you use external css files...

if you ask me, the conslusion is: there's no difference, unless you exaggerate with the length of css code.

[Verbal]

How old/established is the domain you have your 'old school' site on? I'm guessing it's older with better quality in-bound links right?

Personally I think there are way to many variables to make an intelligent assessment, however I would bet that in the near future you will start seeing your CSS sites start moving up and 'old school' moving down.

[Verbal]

edit - double post

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Verbal

How old/established is the domain you have your 'old school' site on? I'm guessing it's older with better quality in-bound links right?

Personally I think there are way to many variables to make an intelligent assessment, however I would bet that in the near future you will start seeing your CSS sites start moving up and 'old school' moving down.

Most of the domains are from 2006 including the 'old school' one. The quaility of in-bound links is the same. In fact the old school site has less then the CSS ones.

I'm currently seeing the opposite my CSS sites are starting to move down and the heavy HTML one just keeps climbing.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

I hear it a lot. Blog after blog, tip after tip. Pure CSS is the way to go for good SEO (I think that rhymed). I have many websites, 28 I think. Most are Pure CSS (tableless designs) with much thought to div order. Some have tables but highly rely on CSS. Those sites rank pretty well.

However, my best ranking site. #4 out of 8 million results, #2 for another keyword out of 7.5 million results is old school HTML. I'm not talking HTML 1.1 I'm talking big fucking heavy HTML. Font tags around every thing. Tables out the ass.

I put more effort in SEO into the CSS sites then I do this one. Not over SEOing it at all. I just pick my keywords more carefully for anchor tags, which sites I allow to link me etc. This one I'm pretty picky on who links me and where my traffic comes from but I don't care what the anchor text is...

Debate.

I do not give a shit about CSS for SEO purposes.

When I had the top spot for my old celebrity site, it equated to a few hundred referrals a day. Maybe a thousand at it's peek on a daily basis.

I had many more coming from my other traffic sources that I had more control over in promotion efforts, and cross linking.

Was it nice? Yes. But I never gamed the SERPS. Just ended up there. On two other sites, I am still page 1. It equates to about the same, and I have never done shit to gear them for SEO.

If you do your updates, and a few other minor things, SERPS will take care of themselves more a less. CSS or not. I've had CSS and html both page one.

[mynameisjim]

In my experience I see no SEO advantage to a well coded, neat page, over a html heavy page. As long as the heavy page is compliant it shouldn't count against you at all.

One thing I can say, if you are ranking well, DON'T CHANGE. Google reacts poorly to change and if you redo your site in CSS, there's a good chance you will have problems. Maybe you won't. But I've seen it happen.

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

In my experience I see no SEO advantage to a well coded, neat page, over a html heavy page. As long as the heavy page is compliant it shouldn't count against you at all.

One thing I can say, if you are ranking well, DON'T CHANGE. Google reacts poorly to change and if you redo your site in CSS, there's a good chance you will have problems. Maybe you won't. But I've seen it happen.

Exactly. I'm about to update it today but I'm not changing much. Just added a few new sponsors and moving two things around.

The spot is bringing me about 2k uniques daily. So, its nice to have that there .. people looking for exactly what you're offering.

[Vick!]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

As long as the heavy page is compliant it shouldn't count against you at all.

what do you mean by compliant?

[Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE]

because its easier for the search engines to see your content when the source says this:

<div id="container">content here</div>

then this:

<table width="700" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
  <tr>
    <td>content here</td>
  </tr>
</table>

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by Vick!

what do you mean by compliant?

Standards compliant... html, xml, css... if it validates without errors.

[klaze]

This thread is stupid.

Thanks for proving nothing O.P

[Cyndalie]

The 'cleaner' the page the better it ranked. Straight up HTML has always trumped CSS, includes, and all kinds of other shit in my experience.

[fallenmuffin]

Originally Posted by Jaysin

because its easier for the search engines to see your content when the source says this:

<div id="container">content here</div>

then this:

<table width="700" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
  <tr>
    <td>content here</td>
  </tr>
</table>

Don't get me wrong I love CSS.. and logically that makes sense. However, my results prove otherwise.

[Pleasurepays]

i wasn't aware that search engines were less effective in 2008 at determining the content of a site and its relevance to searches.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by Jaysin

because its easier for the search engines to see your content when the source says this:

<div id="container">content here</div>

then this:

<table width="700" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
  <tr>
    <td>content here</td>
  </tr>
</table>

O RLY?

[Bro Media - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by jetjet

O RLY?

YA'RLY