Reply
Does this work in SEO
Old 07-26-2007, 12:45 PM Does this work in SEO
coldturkey's Avatar
Extreme Talker

Posts: 195
Name: Rachel
Location: Spain
I have just been suring the net and looking at the codes of a few pages to see what people use more.
I was suprised that only 2 out of 10 used css!
And was puzzles me was that i came across this: (this is a very short vertion using the tag names only)

head
meta
noscript
h1
p
/noscript
/head
body
noscript
h1
p
h2
p
/noscript


If you imaging that all filled in - does using the noscript tag in the head and again in the body get google to read it more. mmmmm

Id be intressed to know if it really works!

Thanks
Rachel
__________________
coldturkey is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit coldturkey's homepage!
 
When You Register, These Ads Go Away!
Old 07-26-2007, 01:49 PM Re: Does this work in SEO
JeremyMiller's Avatar
Full-Time TeraTasker

Posts: 1,005
Name: Jeremy Miller
Location: Reno, NV
I doubt it. Especially since you've got h1 and p tags within noscript and outside the body. I saw a research paper from ACM which indicated that non-spam pages have a substantial portion of the pages as non-visible code, however.
__________________
Jeremy Miller - TeraTask Technologies, LLC
Content Farmer - Automated Posting for Content & Blog Sites
JeremyMiller is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit JeremyMiller's homepage!
 
Old 07-26-2007, 02:15 PM Re: Does this work in SEO
seowebdesigner's Avatar
Super Talker

Posts: 115
Location: www.mowglitech.com
Well tags within noscript, it seems they are poor in html and may be a unknowningly had done this job.....

SEO understands only legal n correct w3c standard codings on the web pages....


Regards,
seowebdesigner is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit seowebdesigner's homepage!
 
Old 07-26-2007, 05:26 PM Re: Does this work in SEO
ForrestCroce's Avatar
Half Man, Half Amazing

Posts: 3,024
Name: Forrest Croce
Location: Seattle, WA
Nothing wrong with code in noscript blocks ... so long as you actually use scripting, and the stuff in noscript is related to what and why. For example, if you go to gmail with javascript turned off, you'll see the contents of their noscript, telling you to turn js back on.

And most pages that you would consider upstanding and not spam, have hidden elements. This one has plenty of them. Click the button that says search, and you'll see a brand new box with an input field and a button. click to give me talkupation, and you'll see even more stuff that's there, in the page code, but not visible.

The key is that there are ways for the user to turn this stuff back on. It's not hidden to fool users or search engines; it's hidden to make a better user experience by not cluttering the page with too much info. The hidden stuff is there when you need it, but out of sight when you don't.

Most sites have navigation that works like that. Hidden elements by themselves aren't spam.
ForrestCroce is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit ForrestCroce's homepage!
 
Old 07-27-2007, 06:27 AM Re: Does this work in SEO
coldturkey's Avatar
Extreme Talker

Posts: 195
Name: Rachel
Location: Spain
Gosh well now i am more confuessed than ever!
__________________
coldturkey is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile Visit coldturkey's homepage!
 
Old 07-27-2007, 08:09 PM Re: Does this work in SEO
Average Talker

Posts: 22
Name: Hakan
Location: Miami, FL
Some tag may work.. Go with W3 compatibility first..

Thanks
Timu
TimuM is offline
Reply With Quote
View Public Profile
 
Reply     « Reply to Does this work in SEO
 

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Webmaster Resources Marketplace:
Software Development Company | Webhosting.UK.com | Text Link Brokers 


   
RSS Feed  Feeds: RSS   JS   XML
RSS Feed  Feeds for this forum: RSS   JS   XML

 


Page generated in 0.13455 seconds with 12 queries