SEO Tycoon

**dyer** · 02-25-2008, 06:45 AM

I'm now going to use VISUAL HTML EDITOR.

Is that any problem with using these editor, Because I've heard that according to Search Engines manual html code has more value that visual html code.

Anybody have an answer? Please clear my doubts.

Dyer

**chrishirst** · 02-25-2008, 09:20 AM

It's best described as complete and utter garbage.

HTML code is HTML code

**Learning Newbie** · 02-25-2008, 03:30 PM

Search engines want to send their customers to pages their customers will like. Most people who use search engines don't even look at the HTML code on the sites they go to.

**thesites** · 02-25-2008, 08:56 PM

Search engines can't tell the difference between the two, whoever said that is a total moron and doesn't deserve an internet connection.

**ssandecki** · 02-29-2008, 02:33 PM

HTML is rendered to the web browsers\search crawlers one way or another, it doesn't matter if you use HTML, PHP, ASP they all render HTML.

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-29-2008, 03:34 PM

Actually...the "search engines don't look at HTML" myth is just that...although it's not immediately obvious. There are search engine "variants", Google Accessible search being a prime example, that place special emphasis on code; they have to in order to ensure that disabled users still receive what they perceive to be relevant results, and that the people who are in there are doing everything they know how to ensure that accessibility guidelines are met. Poorly coded sites generally won't make it in there; my own unofficial, anecdotal studying of Accessible search suggests that approx. 90% of sites "in the main" don't show up in Accessible search...including the vast majority of search engine spam (since spammers are usually a lazy bunch.) My own belief (and there's nothing to support this, since no one is talking about it) is that much of the functionality and sorting within Accessible search will make "the main" within 1-2 years, since putting Accessible search within an area that is...well, inaccessible...is somewhat hypocritical.

That's part 1 of the myth. Part 2 of the myth focuses on PageRank...sort of. A well-designed site, which includes coding, will draw users into its content. Users in turn will be more likely to share it with their friends, and some of that sharing consists of backlinks...the good, organic, quality backlinks. Since PageRank still is a part of the overall algorithm of big G, and backlinks are used to some degree on the two lesser, crappier major engines, it becomes something to focus on.

The issue goes beyond SEs, though, and into marketing in general. You build your foundation right, the marketing becomes easier...and more importantly, you'll be more likely to satisfy your users. So focus on your code...and eventually, get rid of the WYSIWYG editor.

You're lucky LadyNRed hasn't seen this thread yet. She'd probably evangelize you upside the head with her library of CSS books.

**willcode4beer** · 02-29-2008, 03:42 PM

although the search engine's bot may not "look" at the HTML, the HTML is the only thing is "sees".
Where the code might matter is how well the bot's parser is able to extract text from the code. Really really crappy code may give the parser a hard time, or cause it to through an exception resulting in no text indexed.

OTOH, the parsers in most search bots are amazingly good at dealing with bad code, so it has to be really bad to cause problems.

I actually recommend that web developers write their own spider to get a taste of what a search engine has to deal with. A simple spider isn't hard to write and can expose navigation problems on a site.

**smoseley** · 03-02-2008, 02:28 PM

I have to add my 2 cents here...

I recently recoded my company's Joomla site (www.transio.com) and stripped out all the crappy Joomla HTML, hacking the content-writing components to create XHTML-compliant divs and css, and my Google PR went up from 3 to 4.

I'd say that's a pretty significant change. :shrug:

**dyer** · 03-02-2008, 02:35 PM

Thanks for your point

**ForrestCroce** · 03-02-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willcode4beer

I actually recommend that web developers write their own spider to get a taste of what a search engine has to deal with. A simple spider isn't hard to write and can expose navigation problems on a site.

This is great advice.

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-02-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoseley

I have to add my 2 cents here...

I recently recoded my company's Joomla site (www.transio.com) and stripped out all the crappy Joomla HTML, hacking the content-writing components to create XHTML-compliant divs and css, and my Google PR went up from 3 to 4.

I'd say that's a pretty significant change. :shrug:

I would normally never disagree with Steven...he's actually a pretty smart guy (read: a REALLY, REALLY smart guy). He and I go back about 5 years or so, and he's one of the few guys I've learned something from...so I'll personally vouch for a brother's mad knowledge.

But in this case, it's likely a confusion of cause and effect...unless you also cleaned up the navigation and were able to get more internal pages indexed as well.

By the way...you're not allowed to say Joomla creates crappy HTML. Joomla is the FUTURE! Just ask all the open source zealots who don't understand how long it probably took you to clean that garbage up.

How about you tell us all how long it took you to clean that garbage up, Steven?

**moussa854** · 03-02-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoseley

I have to add my 2 cents here...

I recently recoded my company's Joomla site (www.transio.com) and stripped out all the crappy Joomla HTML, hacking the content-writing components to create XHTML-compliant divs and css, and my Google PR went up from 3 to 4.

I'd say that's a pretty significant change. :shrug:

You have14,000 back links thats why PR went from 3 to 4

**smoseley** · 03-02-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moussa854

You have14,000 back links thats why PR went from 3 to 4

I'm not saying I disagree that backlinks are a factor, but where'd you get that #? Last I checked, I have only about 100 backlinks.

**smoseley** · 03-02-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

But in this case, it's likely a confusion of cause and effect...unless you also cleaned up the navigation and were able to get more internal pages indexed as well.

Hey Adam,

Yeah, it was likely a combination of factors, one of them being the fact that I put a lot of links on the homepage (bringing more content to a 2nd level instead of 3rd level heirarchy.)

At the same time, making valid, semantic output certainly must count for some brownie points with SEs, and if not, at the very least, it allows them to better understand what your page is trying to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

By the way...you're not allowed to say Joomla creates crappy HTML. Joomla is the FUTURE! Just ask all the open source zealots who don't understand how long it probably took you to clean that garbage up.

How about you tell us all how long it took you to clean that garbage up, Steven?

Believe it or not, it didn't take long at all. I only had to modify a few files... the content component, the contact component, the menu module, and the content-links module. Of course, in the process, I eliminated some of the core functionality (like the ability to put a menu in a table layout

). All in all it took me less than a day to hack Joomla and write the CSS for the new output, too.

BTW, Drupal is far better than Joomla (though it still sucks arse... check out the db if you doubt, lol).

**ADAM Web Design** · 11:05 PM

Yeah, but it took YOU less than a day, Steven. Your day is about a week and a half for most people.

Quote:

At the same time, making valid, semantic output certainly must count for some brownie points with SEs, and if not, at the very least, it allows them to better understand what your page is trying to say.

It does in at least one SE variant...and it's only a matter of time before it makes the main.

Seriously, do some searches on the accessible search. It has about 1/10 the results of the main, but there's next to no spam and the results are still very relevant.

I'd like to know where Moussa came up with that number as well. Not that it matters...the backlink counter is utterly useless.

**ForrestCroce** · 03-02-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoseley

At the same time, making valid, semantic output certainly must count for some brownie points with SEs, and if not, at the very least, it allows them to better understand what your page is trying to say.

It at least gives them more information to work with making that determination. That doesn't necessarily mean all the search engines are making use of it ... but it isn't the 1990s anymore. If the major engines are figuring out how to remove boilerplate template code, I'm sure they see value in other things they're able to do by looking specifically at the code. Accessibility is one of them...

**chrishirst** · 03-03-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Yeah, it was likely a combination of factors, one of them being the fact that I put a lot of links on the homepage (bringing more content to a 2nd level instead of 3rd level heirarchy.)

The change in site navigation structure IS the reason. PR is only affected by links, so if you change your navigation nearer to a fully meshed structure, naturally the value of the pages (in SE terms) increases.

I would expect that you are seeing a upwards change in crawl rates as well

**ADAM Web Design** · 03-03-2008, 03:14 PM

It's part of the reason....I'm not convinced, knowing Steven as I do, that it's all of the reason. Steven (within ethical boundaries) is a rather aggressive marketer and has a lot of unique content on transio.com (the articles and tuts there are rare, if they even exist anywhere else at all), so it would also stand to reason that he picked up some organic links along the way as well (and maybe some followed sig links, as relatively worthless as they are.)