Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??

RoadKillTs

Show me your website and i'll tell you.

There are loads of examples. Search for solicitor Dublin.
First result in organic section is traceysolicitors.
has a PR of 4. nice clean site. easy to navigate and lots of useful information.

Are you honestly saying if it was W3C compliant it would rank any better?

Any page in particular?

I just ran the site thouugh here

HandWS LTD

RoadKillTs wrote: »

There are loads of examples. Search for solicitor Dublin.
First result in organic section is traceysolicitors.
has a PR of 4. nice clean site. easy to navigate and lots of useful information.

Are you honestly saying if it was W3C compliant it would rank any better?



I just ran the site thouugh here

yeah....a few pages....not important. There are mostly pages not being indexed. One or two as i said will be fixed last.

Solicitors??

Acording to this top ranked domain in google, it was designed by tomED. It's 7 years 11 months old. Old domains are favorable in ranking. It's listed in the open directory (DMOZ) and yahoo...that also is good. Can it be knocked off top spot?? Of course.

#1 in google, page 5 in bing.

For the sake of tomED i will not be posting any problems here. But i will send a PM to you only, for that domain even tho you may be involved with that design company.

link8r

to @HandWS

These are just purely observations, nothing personal but a few things about your site that may perk you interest in terms of giving up on W3C validation and going for what counts:

(I'm not a designer btw)

Firstly, TraceySolicitors - who ever did this - good work, I've come across it before - good work on these sites, I'm impressed!

1. Your site's PR =2/10 (I know toolbarPR = FUD sometimes, it's not about SERP's but 2/10 isn't difficult to achieve). Your SEO page is 0/10 - just an observation

2. I actually found it hard to find your site, even when I put in "hosting and websites" - turns out you have to use web solutions. Wasn't impressed

3. Your site is easily the worst design of all the sites posted by people here - and many of them are very old and I know, we are all so busy working hard on our client that we can't look at our own but really - if you showed me that site I wouldn't care if it was written in Valid W3C or Klingon.

Horrible colours, graphics, branding - really unimpressed.

4. Your page titles are just so all over the shop - while they're not overly long, they're definitely not well planned out - basic SEO fail

Really, W3C compliance isn't helping you!

HandWS LTD

link8r wrote: »

to @HandWS

These are just purely observations, nothing personal but a few things about your site that may perk you interest in terms of giving up on W3C validation and going for what counts:

(I'm not a designer btw)

Firstly, TraceySolicitors - who ever did this - good work, I've come across it before - good work on these sites, I'm impressed!

1. Your site's PR =2/10 (I know toolbarPR = FUD sometimes, it's not about SERP's but 2/10 isn't difficult to achieve). Your SEO page is 0/10 - just an observation

2. I actually found it hard to find your site, even when I put in "hosting and websites" - turns out you have to use web solutions. Wasn't impressed

3. Your site is easily the worst design of all the sites posted by people here - and many of them are very old and I know, we are all so busy working hard on our client that we can't look at our own but really - if you showed me that site I wouldn't care if it was written in Valid W3C or Klingon.

Horrible colours, graphics, branding - really unimpressed.

4. Your page titles are just so all over the shop - while they're not overly long, they're definitely not well planned out - basic SEO fail

Really, W3C compliance isn't helping you!

Ha ha.....'my learned friend', your cheap :pac:. Love to know how you analysis your clients seo page score. Mine 0....tut tut tut. You already know who designed that site TraceySolicitors. As for you being very impressed with it. Load time is fantastic...eh?? Plus a CMS was used.....a simple quick solution....and many more problems. You know quite alot .

Try Bing and tell me.....my SEO poor. It still needs work of course, when i have time. But the most nb keywords. For one "Web Hosting", where are we. I'll tell you #1. You probably won't see it...sorry. Google takes time for new websites that want the biggest keywords.....did you NOT know that . Funny

Want me to check yours?? i'll give you loads of things that wrong.

tricky D

Jeeez. You asked a question and got an answer. Now, yet again, you've spent the last load of posts arguing away and being generally confrontational beyond the point of irritation. And now, yet again, you're laying down a playground challenge to someone who clearly speaks with more authority and experience than you. This going in with both feet first is getting bloody tedious. For someone who's sole purpose on boards.ie is self-promotion, you're not making yourself look good.

Grow up!

HandWS LTD

Hi TrickyD, i'm sorry. His comments was nothing to do with the thread question. This thread should be based on the question, but being dragged elsewhere.

In nearly every thread he's in....u will not see him not getting in an argument. I'm well experienced. This company is not where i've started. If he has more authority and experience he would not have said what he said. The first thing an SEO would notice on that website is loadtime. How did he miss that?

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

This thread should be based on the question, but being dragged elsewhere.

The first thing an SEO would notice on that website is loadtime. How did he miss that?

Um, no. What has loadtime got to do with SEO? You do know I rank kind of OK (I'm not doing this again). Load time - latency is an infrastructural problem we all face, you find the oddest, most technical possible things that nobody is agreeing with. Your whole argument here is laughable. Nobody is agreeing with you at all... but lets keep it going...

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Ha ha.....'my learned friend', your cheap :pac:. Love to know how you analysis your clients seo page score. Mine 0....tut tut tut. You already know who designed that site TraceySolicitors. As for you being very impressed with it. Load time is fantastic...eh?? Plus a CMS was used.....a simple quick solution....and many more problems. You know quite alot .

Try Bing and tell me.....my SEO poor. It still needs work of course, when i have time. But the most nb keywords. For one "Web Hosting", where are we. I'll tell you #1. You probably won't see it...sorry. Google takes time for new websites that want the biggest keywords.....did you NOT know that . Funny

Want me to check yours?? i'll give you loads of things that wrong.

for someone who thinks W3C = professional, fault free delivery:

"your cheap" or "you are cheap" / "you're cheap"
Charming! So much for not making this personal.

"know how you analysis your clients seo page score". Analyse maybe? Just guessing here. I merely pointed out that your web page about SEO was rated as 0/10. Thats the Google PageRank, not my rank. Like I said, an observation...I didn't analyse your page.

I don't know who did that site - there were two people mentioning it - I just liked their strategy. I've never met them. Again, just an observation

Whats wrong with a CMS? How is that a quick, simple solution?

I went to Bing and I didn't see you, sorry:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=all&qs=n

But I dont see anything funny, I take quite an analytical view of it tbh.

HandWS LTD

While your the only one arguing.

Google PageRank ......:pac:. and load time has nothing to do with seo?? Seriously.....good luck if thats what you use/think all the time.

TraceySolicitors - who ever did this - good work, I've come across it before - good work on these sites, I'm impressed!

You say the website is good even tho you didn't check it . Or did you??

Here's your link, and move to #2:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=rf&qs=n

You've made alot of threads personal, you'll see it when you read what you say. However, as trickyd said "grow up". I second that.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

While your the only one arguing.

Google PageRank ......:pac:. and load time has nothing to do with seo?? Seriously.....good luck if thats what you use/think all the time.


You say the website is good even tho you didn't check it . Or did you??

Here's your link, and move to #2:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=web+hosting&go=&form=QBRE&filt=rf&qs=n

You've made alot of threads personal, you'll see it when you read what you say. However, as trickyd said "grow up". I second that.

ok. Google provides, on average of the 250 domains we manage, about 86.6% of traffic. Load time, unless it's "excessive", doesn't count, IMHO. And again, no evidence to support you either.

BTW - you're the one arguing, there isn't a single post agreeing with you. Ahem.

Traceys - I know the company, I know the web presence. I looked at it about 8 months ago. I haven't checked since. But I remember it was good.

Pages from Ireland? thats too easy - I rank either way.

Grow up - that was meant for you btw - I see English isn't your first language (again, just an observation) - hope that helps

HandWS LTD

Grow up - is what i said to you. Just an observation for everything. Loadtime (Just an observation)? Good luck.

RedCardinal

Sad to see threads degenerate, and part of the problem SEO faces in general is the shear volume of conjecture/opinion that gets published online. For instance:

Old domains are favorable in ranking

Complete myth. It's not about age, it's about authority. Old sites can rank very well, but they can also rank very poorly...

link8r

RedCardinal wrote: »

Sad to see threads degenerate, and part of the problem SEO faces in general is the shear volume of conjecture/opinion that gets published online. For instance:

Complete myth. It's not about age, it's about authority. Old sites can rank very well, but they can also rank very poorly...

I agree on both counts. May I add that in the case of "old domains" - I would clarify to say that if you have a brand new domain and you have an existing, indexed domain (in a case where you own both) - the existing domain (which it can be said is the "older" of the two) - may rank quicker because it may have some authority already - but in the immediate term. This maybe the cornerstone to that myth.

I enjoy a good debate but I'm sorry if people have taken something personally.

HandWS LTD

RedCardinal wrote: »

Sad to see threads degenerate, and part of the problem SEO faces in general is the shear volume of conjecture/opinion that gets published online. For instance:

Complete myth. It's not about age, it's about authority. Old sites can rank very well, but they can also rank very poorly...

Agreed on both points.

Matt Cutt did mention aged domains with google. No SE has confirmed that they use length-of-registration as a factor in scoring.

Authority is based on being tied to high quality, well-written content, as well as established and strong inbound links. It's very rare for a brand new domain to have all of these things associated with it. It takes alot of time, planning, follow thru, etc. To have all of these things.

Another example is, you have two sites not yet indexed by Bing, the new domain will take time to be indexed. While the aged one has an advantage give that they have followed their guidelines.

Hope this explains why i have said old domains are favorable in ranking.

tricky D

HandWS LTD wrote: »

However, as trickyd said "grow up".

I wasn't referring to him.

tomED

HandWS LTD wrote: »

For the sake of tomED i will not be posting any problems here. But i will send a PM to you only, for that domain even tho you may be involved with that design company.

I'm a big boy so I don't mind you questioning my ability, experience or work we've been involved in. No need to send me private messages to justify your reasons for commenting on work we've done. Especially when it's only a half arsed apology...

I'm disappointed (for them) that one of our key clients is being used as an example, but on the otherhand it is a perfect example of how a site does not need to validate in order to be hugely successful in the SERPs.

You've clearly shown your ignorance in this thread. From the start of this thread, you've stated that nothing will change your opinion. This pig-headedness is coming through yet again. Rather than accept someone's example of clearly how wrong you are, you have to go on an attack, instead of gracefully accepting it.

In relation to your points...

1. Load Times
Not sure what you connection is like, but for me (1mb line), loads within 4 seconds. I'm happy with that since we are trying to do a lot on that page.

Plus, I've have to agree with Link8r - it's the last thing that I would be looking at when reviewing a site for SEO.

2. CMS
LOL - what are you trying to tell us now that a CMS has a negative effect on your changes of decent rankings too??

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about here, especially when you say "quick simple solution". You have no idea what's going on in the background - totally naive comment.

3. Your Bing Ranking
I didn't bother checking it - but this is clearly one of the reasons why Bing has failed to capture the imagination of web searchers and gain any ground on Google's dominance. It's SERPs are just so poor.


I really don't know why you bother posting on this forum if you want are going to be so closed minded and ignorant. Especially ignoring the comments from those that are clearly a lot more talented and experienced in this area than you.

Why not listen and learn from the experts that contributes here?

Some of Ireland's top SEOs have commented on this thread and you've blatantly dismissed every single one of them.

Not exactly a good tactic if you are hoping in some way to gain respect from your posts on this forum.

If you can't accept when you are wrong, don't bother starting threads like this or picking arguments with experts in the business longer than you.

Not one person here agrees with you... does that not say something to you? If nothing is sinking in, you're more ignorant than I thought.

tomED

Oh and while it's clear that this thread has gone off topic... why not show the results of the Poll. Or are you too embarrased to release that too because it clearly won't agree with your opinion?

HandWS LTD

Ok......this thread has been running away from its questions.

tomED wrote: »

I'm a big boy so I don't mind you questioning my ability, experience or work we've been involved in. No need to send me private messages to justify your reasons for commenting on work we've done. Especially when it's only a half arsed apology...

I'm disappointed (for them) that one of our key clients is being used as an example, but on the otherhand it is a perfect example of how a site does not need to validate in order to be hugely successful in the SERPs.

HandWS LTD wrote:

Sorry for bring this up. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055753670&page=2

I said something about a website you worked on. I didn't want to but had no choice. Do you want me to delete the comment? I will, without any problem.

They're the reason why i sent you a PM. If i deleted the comment without you saying "Yes", what will be next? An attack from someone. Clearly, the PM was the wrong thing to do.

tomED wrote: »

You've clearly shown your ignorance in this thread. From the start of this thread, you've stated that nothing will change your opinion. This pig-headedness is coming through yet again. Rather than accept someone's example of clearly how wrong you are, you have to go on an attack, instead of gracefully accepting it.

I will not stand for anyone attacking my company with LIES that has clearly nothing to do with this threads question. Also, their answers were related to google alone and so on.

tomED wrote: »

In relation to your points...

1. Load Times
Not sure what you connection is like, but for me (1mb line), loads within 4 seconds. I'm happy with that since we are trying to do a lot on that page.

Plus, I've have to agree with Link8r - it's the last thing that I would be looking at when reviewing a site for SEO.

Good webmasters understand the importance of load time. Visitors to a website appreciates it when pages load fast. People with slow internet connections will leave straight away because their browser FREEZE'S for a good amount of time until its loaded fully when accessing that site. It's losing traffic and potential customers for your client. You always have to consider visitors with slow internet connections.

tomED wrote: »

2. CMS
LOL - what are you trying to tell us now that a CMS has a negative effect on your changes of decent rankings too??

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about here, especially when you say "quick simple solution". You have no idea what's going on in the background - totally naive comment.

I'm not against them but they do have their disadvantages. My point was that the CMS's coding is not unique, always comes with errors, loadtimes need to be brought down with them, some of them do not index properly on search engines, they requires more memory (also more CPU power and software maintenance), your webspace increase's alot more which causing you to pay more for web hosting, they require upgrades, and finally it is a quick solution to design a website....rather than designing one from scratch which is unique. Yes, you can easily change them yourself.

tomED wrote: »

3. Your Bing Ranking
I didn't bother checking it - but this is clearly one of the reasons why Bing has failed to capture the imagination of web searchers and gain any ground on Google's dominance. It's SERPs are just so poor.

Their SERP's are not poor. You clearly do not understand how they work. They are new, unique and should be given the time. Yes, they jumped into the market too fast with some of the problems they've had lately. On plus side it gives new companies a chance to dominate the market while google takes time with competitive keywords. It's suprising, the amount of professional's that do not care about it even tho it generates more traffic. Is website traffic not important for any website?

tomED wrote: »

I really don't know why you bother posting on this forum if you want are going to be so closed minded and ignorant. Especially ignoring the comments from those that are clearly a lot more talented and experienced in this area than you.

Why not listen and learn from the experts that contributes here?

Some of Ireland's top SEOs have commented on this thread and you've blatantly dismissed every single one of them.

Not exactly a good tactic if you are hoping in some way to gain respect from your posts on this forum.

If you can't accept when you are wrong, don't bother starting threads like this or picking arguments with experts in the business longer than you.

Not one person here agrees with you... does that not say something to you? If nothing is sinking in, you're more ignorant than I thought.

closed minded, ignorant, and ignoring the comments?? Their answers were based on google alone, testing, your clients website, and another one knew exactly what he was doing. To your suprise, the pole is going exactly where i want it to go. Also, i'm not alone. The results will be shown at the end.....just giving others time to answer the pole.

gnxx

I've written search engine stuff and while I can't speak for other companies I can tell you that w3c compliance has little or no impact on search engine ranking.

Generally, the goal is to parse even the worst pages into raw text. We have about hundreds of test cases from live sites that would make even the most experienced web developers cringe ...

For example:
<style="font-size=12" >Some text</style>

In this case, the tags are just discarded ( like other tags ) and we extract the text. This is indexed as well as text correctly surrounded with well-formed P tags.

The main things that we've come across that leave pages open to bad indexing are:

- Timeouts; page load time is mentioned elsewhere in this thread but this isn't generally important to search engines since the JS, CSS, Images and embedded content are ignored. However, we frequently encounter sites that have problems even serving the HTML page ( because they are generating content dynamically ). Make sure that your database code is efficient or consider caching dynamic elements.

- Using javascript to generate hyperlinks; don't do it ... ( unless you want to avoid search engines indexing your content ). A special shout out to idiots who use Javascript to set the page title when the <title> tag could be used ...

- Embeded content; Flash springs to mind but other content such as Iframes and Ajax requests are frequently ignored by the crawler, so don't use these if you want the content indexed.

- Getting simple basic standards right; If you are using a standard, then use it correctly. For example, don't put two <head> sections or <title> tags in a document ( common ). Setting codeset correctly falls into this category. My particular favorite ( this week ) are Meta tags with name="dc.date.created" content="1970-01-01".

- Codepage; make sure that if you are setting the codepage/charset that you do this correctly. Also make sure that pages are correctly transfered between plaforms. Pages written using Windows or a Mac and moved onto a Linux server seem to suffer badly from this problem. ( Those funny Microsoft quotation marks and fadas are good examples -- particular the fada since it mangles Irish words that users may search for ).

- Make sure the content exists; This may sound really obvious to most but ensure that you only publish a hyperlink after the page exists. We encounter a number of sites that update their home page ( for example to publish financial results ) without adding the actual page. The crawler follows the link, gets a page not found error and marks the page as an error. A well-written crawler keeps an ignore list to avoid trying to refetch broken pages. When the content is added later, the crawler still ignores it.

In summary, w3c will not help you achieve better search engine rankings but the correct application of simpler formal or defacto standards is much more important.

link8r

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Ok......this thread has been running away from its questions.

They're the reason why i sent you a PM. If i deleted the comment without you saying "Yes", what will be next? An attack from someone. Clearly, the PM was the wrong thing to do.

I will not stand for anyone attacking my company with LIES that has clearly nothing to do with this threads question. Also, their answers were related to google alone and so on.

Good webmasters understand the importance of load time. Visitors to a website appreciates it when pages load fast. People with slow internet connections will leave straight away because their browser FREEZE'S for a good amount of time until its loaded fully when accessing that site. It's losing traffic and potential customers for your client. You always have to consider visitors with slow internet connections.


I'm not against them but they do have their disadvantages. My point was that the CMS's coding is not unique, always comes with errors, loadtimes need to be brought down with them, some of them do not index properly on search engines, they requires more memory (also more CPU power and software maintenance), your webspace increase's alot more which causing you to pay more for web hosting, they require upgrades, and finally it is a quick solution to design a website....rather than designing one from scratch which is unique. Yes, you can easily change them yourself.

closed minded, ignorant, and ignoring the comments?? Their answers were based on google alone, testing, your clients website, and another one knew exactly what he was doing. To your suprise, the pole is going exactly where i want it to go. Also, i'm not alone. The results will be shown at the end.....just giving others time to answer the pole.

The fact that you sell hosting is so apparently clear here - you're pre-occupied with loading times and code quality. The thread has pretty much stayed true to the question will W3C help (and a resounding no) - yet you keep pulling it in every possible way.

It will be 2010 in less than 4 weeks and you're arguing whether a CMS is a good idea? I've never heard such contrived tripe in all my years working on the web (12 years). So while some people are moving to Web 3.0 (as vague as that is) - you're suggesting we move back to Web 1.0? Fantastic...

Just reading this reply of yours about best sums up your view: you are not listening or thinking about the comments you are getting to the questions you asked!

Firstly, while the initial reply from RedFly was to do with Google, we've gone to look at Bing's blog and it didn't offer any other support for your argument
It's been a very generic discussion.

Before you call the Forum Police for "Thread Wandering" - you entitled this thread yourself "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"


Then half way through you decided it was all about Bing! only and not about other search engines. Have you sat down and read back through what you've written?

And to keep going with the other mistakes and half baked theories you have: Bing! is a new name for a search engine that is actually older than Google. It's even accessible/shares the same web address as Live Search did.

"Good Webmasters agee with [insert your outrageous claims here]" - where are they? There are plenty who've read this and don't agree with you. Or do people have to agree with you to be considered good by you? I'm guessing so.

Honestly, TomEd has summed you up best. Please feel free to tell me how wrong I am now:

RedCardinal

HandWS LTD wrote: »

No SE has confirmed that they use length-of-registration as a factor in scoring.

Actually I've seen confirmation that domain registration age is not used, but I'm not sure that's public domain or not. Need to check

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Authority is based on being tied to high quality, well-written content, as well as established and strong inbound links.

Actually no. Crap, pi$$-poor content can also have authority.

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Another example is, you have two sites not yet indexed by Bing, the new domain will take time to be indexed. While the aged one has an advantage give that they have followed their guidelines.

Bing? Who in their right mind cares about Bing here in Ireland? You do realise that Google has ~95% share here don't you? If you're after international markets you might want to spend some time on other search engines, but if you're trading locally then there's virtually no point in doing any SEO targeting anything other than Google. If you rank well in Google you'll often also rank fine in the others.

I too would love to see the outcome of this poll - why is it private?

mneylon

link8r wrote: »

The fact that you sell hosting is so apparently clear here - you're pre-occupied with loading times and code quality.

Oi! I resent that

link8r

Blacknight wrote: »

Oi! I resent that

LoL - I was trying to avoid "collateral damage" at all costs . That was so aimed at OP and not other hosters who clearly aren't as narrowly focused!;)

Apologies to all hosting folks!

link8r

RedCardinal wrote: »

Actually no. Crap, pi$$-poor content can also have authority.

You do realise that Google has ~95% share here don't you?

I too would love to see the outcome of this poll - why is it private?

@RedCardinal: 3 good points RedCardinal - the argument that good content should lead to good authority doesn't suddenly flip on rubbish or computer generated content.

Clearly the OP lost his argument after the initial replies and has re-directed the thread to be just about Bing,...

Should we do a new thread with a new poll and make it public? would be interesting...Anyone got the energy to reply?

of course, anyone caught talking about different search engines in the new thread would be allowed to too :P

HandWS LTD

LOL......this thread gets funnier everyday.

RedCardinal wrote: »

Crap, pi$$-poor content can also have authority.

Yes....but not good authority as i've explained about. I should have put the word "good" infront of it.

RedCardinal wrote: »

Bing? Who in their right mind cares about Bing here in Ireland? You do realise that Google has ~95% share here don't you? If you're after international markets you might want to spend some time on other search engines, but if you're trading locally then there's virtually no point in doing any SEO targeting anything other than Google. If you rank well in Google you'll often also rank fine in the others.

Yes.....google is always #1. You'll work fine in the other SE's. Would you not like to be top in the others too?

RedCardinal wrote: »

I too would love to see the outcome of this poll - why is it private?

Be patient, you will all see the outcome. As i've explained previously, it will be shown 30 days after it was started. Its private for the 30 days to stop people guessing.

link8r wrote: »

It will be 2010 in less than 4 weeks and you're arguing whether a CMS is a good idea? I've never heard such contrived tripe in all my years working on the web (12 years). So while some people are moving to Web 3.0 (as vague as that is) - you're suggesting we move back to Web 1.0? Fantastic...

Just reading this reply of yours about best sums up your view: you are not listening or thinking about the comments you are getting to the questions you asked!

Firstly, while the initial reply from RedFly was to do with Google, we've gone to look at Bing's blog and it didn't offer any other support for your argument
It's been a very generic discussion.

No mention of it in Bing's blog. You actually have no facts of this....so you cannot totally write it off for that reason. Most SE's would not use it as a ranking factor, so the question was.....is there one that does? You can write off google of course.

LOL, i did say i have nothing against CMS but gave the disadvantages anyway. The first 2 points of gnxx's post are additional problems for some CMS.

LOL, I also never stated we'll go back to web 1.0, you wont get far with web 1.0 and we all know that.

link8r wrote: »

Before you call the Forum Police for "Thread Wandering" - you entitled this thread yourself "Will W3C guidelines and error free website help your ranking??"


Then half way through you decided it was all about Bing! only and not about other search engines. Have you sat down and read back through what you've written?

I was actually going with the comments and addressing them with AN example......used bing as an example.

RedCardinal

HandWS LTD wrote: »

Yes....but not good authority as i've explained about. I should have put the word "good" infront of it.

Well this helps me a lot, I now have total clarity on one point - you haven't got the foggiest notion about how search engines work. There's no such thing as "good authority".

When you find yourself in a hole the first and foremost thing to do is stop digging...

link8r

RedCardinal wrote: »

Well this helps me a lot, I now have total clarity on one point - you haven't got the foggiest notion about how search engines work. There's no such thing as "good authority".

When you find yourself in a hole the first and foremost thing to do is stop digging...

"Good Authority" - its completely redundant but I love the condescending tone taken by the OP.

mneylon

Stop feeding the trolls

Seriously

honka_bonka

HandWS LTD,

Seriously now,

You say CMS 's are bad for ranking ( same as a non W3C validated website ) yet Wordpress based websites ( CMS ?) are loved by Google ( full of coding flaws thou ) and usually rank better and faster than others ( talking about Google SERPS )

Please tell me why ?

Thank you ( and sorry to interfere but couldn't help it ),

Me.

honka_bonka

Blacknight wrote: »

Stop feeding the trolls

Seriously

C'mon , is fun