I had no problem with you before today. I found you entertaining and hoped you would get your life turned around. After I read your post regarding the logo, and other work, I was going to send you, well, then it became pretty clear you're just self destructive, rabid cunt.

FUck you kiddie...
I gave you a reason to dislike me now after two days of your shit talk.
I called you an idiot. You are an idiot.

Byeeeee!

That's exactly why it's good for SEO. You can put objects on a different position with CSS, so the surfer gets to see it differently than the search engines. But I guess that's too hard for you to understand.

Good luck with your $1 banner design business :)

But thats not the catch all be all.

The focus of the website is content. You want to play grey hat and use CSS to fake a H1 as mark up content thats fine... Sure that'll work but eventually the SE's will adapt as they appearently are doing now to recind the order structure of pages.

DOing such may help in ranking ( for now ) but its not the definer where the ranking is placed as to the why or how. If you you use base HTML no CSS and use Headers properly you will get the same results and yes you can structure a base HTML Non CSS page to present information in an order to SE's that would make no difference.

Code your pages good and proper and it will always get you better results.

Fact: Content is King not structure.

yes it does... when you use it... you can modify the layout of your site while keeping it an aesthetically pleasing look and easily navigable to the surfer - another benefit is making dynamic navigation which is very important. But making that navigation appear above your info while in actuality it is on the bottom within the code...

All of this IS SEO beneficial...

You are correct in the the valid HTML and what not... It is more important than using css... BUT CSS can and WILL (if done right, and you are not outdone by other sites) help your seo presence...

Google already has an algorithm in place to detect text that is hidden and moved via CSS. Their official statement is that they have not removed any sites from the SERPs for this, yet.

this is a great way to SEO it up...

CSS added to it will up the ante ... and most likely make it easier to navigate for the surfer which is only money in the bank...

no one sayd you cant get good SEO without CSS>.. but CSS is an advantage to be taken...

Seriously... Alien... its good...

Im not saying its the only tool to use...

It effects way more than text and divisions...

Anyone can do whatever they want... But you cannot factually downplay to efficiency of CSS

Also - Id liek to add...

When i use CSS to manipulate placement of divisions or beneficial tags... I keep in mind the legitimacy of my content and methods... someone said greyhat... I myself dont stray too far from what is basic HTML acceptance... I dont hide words and I dont do anything screwy... I simply move links and info to where they will benefit my relevance.

There is a layout that google and other SEs like... a lot of it goes back to KISS...

this goes with anyone's SEO methods... keep it real, bend the light is all... Make it extremely relevant, easier for the surfer to get around while keeping the spiders well fed...





screw it all... whoever donst think CSS is helpful... screw you... keep on with your ways... Ill stick to mine... I dont even know why I try to show people helpful hints and beneficial methods...

Not one person in this whole thread said that CSS isn't insanely useful. You're missing its purpose, however. CSS is used to describe PRESENTATION for markup.

You can't say CSS is important for SEO because tables are bad for it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

i think im arguing more than one argument..

css IS superior to tables - whether they are necessary to use or not...

css IS SEO beneficial...

That is all I have babbled on about...

Can you back up this statement without using one the following [invalid] examples?

• Uncluttered HTML
• Text positioning
• Using semantic markup

The level of retardation is astounding in this thread.

Let me break it down for you tard yard big boys.

<div id="content">some content here</div>
<div id="navigation">navigation menu here</div>
<div id="footer">footer stuff here</div>

Using proper CSS you can make that look like navigation on the left, content in the middle, and footer at the bottom.

Now lets try to do that exact same look with tables

<table>
<tr>
<td>navigation</td>
<td>content area</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>footer stuff</td>
</tr>
</table>

Oh look, the source code shows the navigation first, which means the search engines use it's stuff before it gets to your content, and if google index's say 100kb that means a good portion of your index is just your navigation, the shit you REALLY don't care if the surfer sees.

Does that help you mentally challenged people who don't understand proper CSS/DIV use and SEO, truely understand why it's better to use?

One thing though none of you really paid attention to in this thread is something I would agree on. CSS is awesome for setting out different themes and design elements for several sites at once while displaying the same content accross them all.

THere are alot of advantages to CSS in many ways but at the same time there are hardly any developer tools for it. You goto have a nice assortment of class libraries and collect veritable elements and collect a steady hand of premade layout concepts to to ease the work flow.

Meaning you goto pretty much code the shit by hand which interrupts work flow immensely especially when setting out on a new layout and having to debug every portion of it. Sure you can be a designer and stick to a couple base templates in CSS and fake your way through it but again from what I know many clients want different things different layouts.
The methods required at current are hardly conducive to the work flow of a production.

Again no developer tools, nothing like DreamWeaver to streamline the work flow in a way that is more productive and timely.

I am dabbling with CSS and so far from what I gather it is appearently a series of work arounds and compatibility issues. I visit CSS tutorial sites and they have massive display failures and make excuses on the pages for Opera, FireFox and especially IE as to why the pages are not displaying properly for the tutorial pieces from Nav set ups to layouts while listing the faults of the CSS layout itself and its compatibility issues.

Back to Work Flow:
I layout a design in Photoshop and cut it up place the information in tables then set out to optimise the html, make way for text and so forth. I use DreamWeaver to intuitively take my graphical elements and view it as the page design comes together.

With CSS you can do a layout with Photoshop ( Kinda ) but good luck getting things to order out reliably the way it does when using table based layout elements unless of course you have a preset CSS layout already established otherwise you are going to have to recode by hand the entire thing creating custom tags and hoping the positioning is accurate.

Sorry positioning is not accurate whats so ever when it comes to CSS. It simply IS not accurate or reliable when it comes to layout control.

I just think CSS is not ready for prime time once again pointing to the lacking of proper development tools while having excessive failures in cross browser compatibility. If you are an SEO freak sure CSS can make your life easier as you can extend your content into veritiable websites using different CSS styles sure it might theoretically help in SEO in ordering the content but I wouldnt count on it as a fail safe road to top SEO results just because the content was ordered properly using CSS. If you order content properly on standard HTML you will get the same results. Content is KING bottom line there. Use valid code and you will get great results whether its in CSS or not.

I do plan on moving to CSS though and I am working with it in my off time, which I happen to have alot of right now, trust me you people will be the first to know if I ever arrive to the conclusion that CSS is better for design but right now I do not think so.

Anyways I am so done with this thread, so done with this topic...

SO done with it.

Thank you. You just proved my point. What you have just described is PROPER USE OF MARKUP TAGS for SEO benefit. The only use for CSS in your example is to style this markup (which has no SEO benefit).

You are confusing what is having a benefit and what is not.

Uncluttered markup IS AN SEO benefit. But you can do this WITHOUT CSS! CSS just makes life easier. CSS does not directly correlate to any SEO benefit. It does indirectly increase SEO by allowing you use proper markup.

This is one thing I am going to have to disagree with you on.

If you're looking for some kind of CSS IDE, try TopStyle.

It sounds like you are new to CSS and it has become aggrevating (which it can be). If this is the case, I urge you to check out some helpful CSS frameworks that will make your life easier:

Blueprint CSS
YAML
(there are many more, Google "css framework")

Keep in mind that these are not semantically "correct", but they are nice to use in the design stage to make life easier/quicker.

As I said in the other thread, using tables is like designing in Photoshop in grids where as using css is like using Photoshop with layers.

Do you design square by square in Photoshop or in layers?

sure..

• Link positioning
• manipulating semantic markup

those are the two main ones...

i think what it boils down to is making it algorithm friendly all while making it normal looking and aesthetically pleasing to the surfer... make it informative, but also make them love your site...

The more relevant and simple it is, the better the SEO... organically...

Now the way 'I' feel.. surfers search for things, they click on the first 1 maybe 3 links.. if seo is done right they should find what they want within those sites...

say there is site A and site B... A is very simple, white, just text n links and h1 tags...Informative sure, but most of the navigation is at the bottom... or on the side...

now site B has all the same info and linking to the same people... yet its aesthetically pleasing to the surfer, all navigation is above and below and all the right links are in their places whether its where it actually is in the code or not... the surfer can navigate with such ease he found everything he needs AND knows exactly where to find it...

Im not saying this is every case...

But it IS a valid argument... plain html SEO can pull you results but did you have the navigation to whatever it is youre referring above the fold?

I like to make sure... my links are where they need to be for the surfer to find easily AND where the spider would like to see them...



Ive done my campaigns and research on it first hand... I know my results... Not only do i like to SEO things, but i like to sell what Im SEOing...

maybe Im arguing the wrong point, maybe im arguing Seo mixed with marketing... but whoever is arguing my point without seeing what Im trying to say is just simply trying to argue...

its lunch time and Ive have spent too much time aside from my actual work in these CSS threads...

Fuck it... I dont even care... :pimp

<table>
<tr>
<td>navigation</td>
<td>content area</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>footer stuff</td>
</tr>
</table>

Or...

<table>
<tr>
<td>Content Area</td><TD>Navigation</TD>
</tr>
<tr rowspan=2>
<td>footer stuff</td>
</tr>
</table>

Simplify the order of content with good structure along those lines.

I will look into those thank you:)
And yes CSS is pissing me way the fuck off lately. GFY aint nothing compared to the frustration I am having in learning CSS by hand code without shit to use as a basis for a work flow.

I've copied templates dissected the shit, grabbed up a number of different libraries I can use and doing it all by hand at this time. Its a royal fuck in the ass.

Your argument is based upon valid uses of CSS (aesthetics), however - aesthetics does not equate to proper SEO. Your CSS positioning (to place content higher in the markup, not not so visually) will eventually be penalized so I will not consider this a valid point.

If you want to stick with up to date standards, this is completely unacceptable. It is syntactically valid, but not semantically. The rule is: only use tables for data that should go into a table (think spreadsheet).

I'd prefer you used CSS for the first, but it still looks ok.

If you used the second table, I'd never hire you. :2 cents:

I'm not talking about hiding things, but leaving the important content on the top of the code and the less relevant content below. And I seriously doubt Google will take action against what I'm talking about, unless someone takes this shit to another level.

And I agree AlienQ, content is king and CSS is just a small improvement. But that's not relevant as we're talking about tables vs CSS.

If you compare a perfect tableless CSS layout to a perfect table layout, the CSS one has a lot more benefits when it comes to loading times (IF it uses multiple pages), SEO (cleaner code, content on top) and management (everything can be changed a lot faster). I don't see how anyone can disagree on this.

Plus with CSS it's a lot easier to integrate designs into scripts.

I didn't know we were talking about the future...

They have been saying this for a couple years now, I have chalked it up to heresay since what i have read from google and such that they arent leaning either way...

Im also relying on my and others' results...

And yes... i guess im arguing the mixture of SEO and marketing...

Someone can build a nice house out of shit, but will they find anyone to live in it?

Just as I have for almost anyone that has ever asked me... I will help you Alien with your CSS if you need/want it...

You keep saying that placement is unstable, but you are dealing with basic CSS< if you use strict settings and know all the right formulas, you will position every browser equal and have the added benefit of cell phone surfers n such... depending on the site of course...

god damn girls relax...

Yes, mom ... :disgust

the reason css is pissing you off is because you dont know how to do it.

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

http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/css-and-seo.shtml

http://www.avangate.com/articles/seo-css_64.htm

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

http://www.darrenatkinson.co.uk/articles/boost-seo-css/

http://www.nick-stone.com/css_seo.php

:2 cents:

:2 cents:

All of those articles are about using valid markup.

Not using tables is a good thing, and does help SEO.
Using CSS alone does not benefit SEO.

CSS does allow you to quit using tables and start using semantic markup, so it indirectly helps SEO - but it does not directly, and this has been my point all along.

The two are not mutually exclusive; I can still build a tabled and cluttered markup website, and still use CSS to style it.

that's it mister! go to your room! no dinner for you and give me the laptop!

rowspan=2?

:error