Fuck do i hate CSS
 

trying to do some simple shit sucks fucking ass

i will never take a css design from a designer ever again....

Let me help you - for a minmal wage of course :winkwink:

Css is tedious but truly easy - once you know all the proper formulas though of course

Your designer fucked up big time. I notice a lot of of these guys never execute CSS properly.


HTML that is formatted for the purpose of CSS usage should be easy to read & understand. Also when this is in place the search engine spiders can hook on to your content much better.

If you need help let me know.

OH god...
Here we go again.

No...
CSS does not make SEO any better. Thats such an Internet fallacy.
Search Engines dismiss any mark-up it finds whether it is Tabled or CSS.
It makes no fucking difference.

I am not going to get into why or how...
But suffice to say the claim that CSS is SEO friendly is pure bullshit.

It is also safe to say you are not the first guy to get trashed by a CSS designer

why the fuck would i waste my time learning css when what i want to do i can do in 60 seconds using tables ?

Well its my own fault i let designers give me css designs for a short while in 2008 never will i make that mistake again.

Well you are right about that. I'm a css coder and I can tell you that css is a peace of cake. Sometimes working with tables it's harder than working with css.

Let me clarify...

I mean technically CSS is great for text formating but CSS based layouts using DIV's are pure shit and a CSS laid out page using DIV's has no impact on whether or not it is DIV or Tabled data with any consequences of being more or less SE friendly.

Thats a fact, its been discussed utterly and in compelte detail on almost every web head discussion board on the internet. Bottom line Table layouts and Div layouts have no fucking difference in SE optmization.

AlienQ is on a roll again. You just couldn't shut up, could ya? :1orglaugh

not the shit im trying to edit.

if it was tabled i would have 1 table with 3 collums i would create another row and copy the data from first 3 to second 3 edit the text and links and i would be done in 5 min's

with css i have no fucking idea how to do this crap and i gave up after 5 min's of fucking around with it.

In the end css is great for keeping designers busy and me wasting $$$$ to get shit edited i could do myself before css.

Fuck CSS

The price is wrong Bob!

CSS/DIV's allow you to position your CONTENT at the top of the file, and NAVIGATION at the bottom, but still display your NAVIGATION on the left of the screen.

Therefor SEO is better by giving your content to the spiders before they see your navigation.

CSS is strictly for ease of use and cleaner code, and quicker load times. Nothing more.

for once he is right tho

LOL

Sure so what about all those disabled people that use screen readers?

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/seo

css - common stupid style

But it makes no difference to the spider in the first place as all mark up information is IGNORED! Spiders do not count mark up language in the Document weight.

They can do whatever the fuck they did before CSS i dont really focus on the disabled niche never have.

This thread has nothing to do with SEO and if you think google prefers CSS over tables your an idiot.

Don't hate the code, hate the coder!

Obviously screen readers are irrelevant to porn, but I was speaking on a wider spectrum.


Tables were implemented for the use of tabular data .... plain and simple.

Tried and tested.


http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/seo-blog/i...alid-html-css/

Valid Code. That was a test for Valid code. Dude.

HTML Mark up and CSS with Valid code and both were preferred by google.

Invalid CSS and Invalid HTML were not preferred by Google. Which is fairly expected. Google does not like pages with Errors.. DUH!

I have a love-hate relationship with CSS. Some features just don't work across browsers.

Sure - if you dont want css because its much more simple to use tables, by all means youre statement is legit...

But... you guys saying css is equal to tables when it comes to SEO... youre simply wrong.

Alien... you dont like to use css, we all know... but everytime you talk like this... you sir, are wrong...

Thats all :)

CSS rox!

[QUOTE=AlienQ;15350037]Let me clarify...

I mean technically CSS is%2

I'll let you people debate I know where I stand on the matter and do not hide it.

I did my research on subject and it's my own conclusion. If I found a valid reason to use DIV's I would. But the bottom line regarding DIV's as a layout structure makes Zero difference and I have not read anything that says contrary.

Only problem with div's is that you risk alot more cross browser compatibility in layout control while tables layouts demonstrate far more stength in displaying properly.

I am a big believer that there should be alot of text on tours and such to make them text rich and SEO friendly and CSS is great for controlling the lettering and styling of the text. I do use CSS for font and text control but I wont do layouts in DIV.

Thats just how I do it, I am not saying thats how everyone should do it.

Say what you will Alien, but youre wrong. YOUR conclusion is wrong. Does it mean that your shit dosnt work or isnt good? fuck no it dosnt.

But your statements are WRONG...

also id like to add, if you used more css for your designs... your shit could be a lot cooler.

Css has endless possibilities... ESPECIALLY with making sites cool and interactive.

Fuck text n shit... but it gives you the ability to stack layers and make them work with your browser...

im not saying youre wrong with YOUR designs... you pump out some cool shit ... but CSS could/would kick it up a notch in certain instances as where tables cannot...


/debate

[QUOTE=StuartD;15350168]WTF? My post just got majorly messed up and it wasn't even me that did it. It was there. Strange.

[QUOTE=StuartD;15350202]intraweb noobicon :winkwink:

I'm going to try this post again....

You are the self proclaimed failure, had to cancel Christmas so you'd be the expert we all turn to for this sort of information.. right?

Please stop spouting out your thoughts as "fact" as you may end up costing someone money (again) when it's obvious that you're usually wrong... as is the case here. :2 cents:

And for this, you'll never be as good as you could be, or as you think you are already. Rejecting the future trends due to stubbornness and ignorance is a great way to keep your business at a stand still.

IF you know what you are doing, css has certain advantages when it comes to seo... but the key is that you have to know what you are doing, if you don't, converting table design to css won't offer any benefits when it comes to seo.... :2 cents:

QFT :thumbsup

At least we know...

AlienQ DID NOT invent CSS

I personally love xhtml/css and wont use anything else!
Tables imo suck balls!
The shit loads so slow and it takes a billion lines of code to just create the most simple 3 column layout it also requires fuckloads more images.

Thank you.

PS: For the haters...
I do use CSS in almost everything I do.:1orglaugh
You guys are so black and white just loving to get some sort of edgewise bit in.

Pretty sad.
I am confident in what I do and I have had plenty in the past come to me wanting table based designs. So keep up the good work. Do CSS all you want.

I'll use CSS when I feel like it is needed because I have that option.
Some of you newer guys dont. You believe in one way I believe in diversity.

I do not sware to CSS nor Tabled based designs. But half you guys got no idea why you do CSS other than it is a catchy sales pitch right now.

Do you even know what the definition of 'diversity' is?

Your back peddling is giving me whiplash.

You don't use CSS for shit, I've seen your code.

You use dreamweaver with CSS option turned on...which does it for you, cause you don't know how to do anything besides set font colors :1orglaugh
And any real designer knows exactly why you use CSS.. but you're not a real designer.

A real designer can code, you cannot.

Im going to pretend you didnt just post this...

First of all , notice woj said "if you dont know what youre doing...(point to story)*

and you cheer that ... laughable...

second... Im sure all designers to this day STILL use tables even if they like css, as I do... I use tables constantly... do i believe in full css designs, when its necessary or wanted by a client... is there places and times for css or tables, of course, equally so...

I think all Im trying to say is ... the mumbo jumbo you spout about css not being what it is... well, its just silly... the only hating going on is you, hating on css...

I dunno what to say Alien... you say css is crap, then you say you use it all the time...

I dont care if you use it or not... but what you say about it and its 'advantages' are not true... its is very useful and efficient... it has capabilities beyond tables... therefor in essence, it IS better...

use it or not... dont say things as fact when they simply are not...

:1orglaugh

AlienQ invented SEO :thumbsup

Correct :2 cents:

Ummmm...

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ind...ere-bots-stop/

Your design has tables, than that means that the page is only gonna show so much before being cut off... now can you position your content IN THE SOURCE above all your navigation but still display your content as if it was in tables, with just tables? NO.

CSS/DIV you can, which means BETTER SEO.

Read above, Mr. Know-It-All.

:2 cents:

You're going to have to, the new html specs will push quite a bit more into CSS.

I hear a lot of theories here but have yet to see even one link to a google page that
explains any of it.

So I think people tried certain things and it seems to work for them and now they
believe strongly in what they did. Not really a scientific test.

Awright I am done with this subject but just to quoate the artical...

"Here's how this experiment was actually conducted. I took 25 pages of different sizes (from 45 KB to 4151 KB) and inserted unique, non-existent keywords into each page at 10 KB intervals (that is, a unique keyword was included after each 10 KB of text). These keywords were auto-generated exclusively for this experiment and served as "indexation depth marks". "

Non exhistant keywords are not mark up language.
Meaning simply he used words that had no meaning.

THis page demonstrates nothing but text weight of a document and how far a Search Engine will get of the text information. THis example you show means nothing in regards to mark up language and how SE's interpret them as document weight.

Document weight is actual readable Text not the mark up language.

You guys are not worth debating obviously you can only resort to name calling and snide remarks while remaining ignorant.

I think youre the only one doing this...

Do not know why you get on my case I looked at most youir stuff you still use tables big time. Please step off my cock.

I got no idea why you goto hunt and pester me and every shit thing I say...

Cant you just put me on ignore for fucks sakes?

One thing for sure in this thread is that AlienQ knows how to read the links
better than some people who are posting them.