Charging for websites

[Augmented]

Google and Yahoo prefer separation..

Sure, but that's only really relevant to content density, and so the level at which the page is optimised for a keyword . I'm curious about this idea that having javascript in a document gives rise to penalty.

In this respect we all better stop using CSS. Don't want to to be demerited for having <style> tags do we? Oh, and watch out for PHP. That's seriously bad for SEO:

<?php
for ($i = 1; $i <= 99999; $i++) {
   echo 'buy viagra pills, cialis meds cheap';
}

 

[blade007]

you know ... I'd rather spend my time developing link backs and adding more content than investigang negatives ... buddha says always think of a positive

 

[probedb]

when jscript not enabled it shows some text (but no link), as it should.

the thing is if you publish an email address using mailto then you get all sorts of weird emails from useless people ... so either you use jscript to hide it (pretty good), a contact form (very good but cannot be everywhere on your site) or as an image (best) but that means people have to type in the email address and they may make a mistake and you lose business.

Even contact forms aren't safe from spam, i get spam through my feedback forms. Most crawlers that trawl for email addresses won't just look for mailto: they'll use a regexp to find likely email addresses.

Next thing I'm having to do is image validation stuff but even that isn't falible as they just pay students to sit and fill in the forms!

I hate spam. I also hate that email is inherently insecure and not up to the task for which it is now used as well

And on JS, it is only bad if used in a way that means your site won't function without it or does something that makes your site inaccessible.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Sure, but that's only really relevant to content density, and so the level at which the page is optimised for a keyword . I'm curious about this idea that having javascript in a document gives rise to penalty.

In this respect we all better stop using CSS. Don't want to to be demerited for having <style> tags do we? Oh, and watch out for PHP. That's seriously bad for SEO:

<?php
for ($i = 1; $i <= 99999; $i++) {
   echo 'buy viagra pills, cialis meds cheap';
}

SE won't see the PHP... so even in the form of your satirical dig, it doesn't hold water

See http://www.textlinkbrokers.com/blog/more/A180_0_1_0_M/ where the author mentions "externalising" JavaScript. Though they still use <script type="text/JavaScript" src="file.js"></script> and not <link>

 

[huppy]

However, google and yahoo spiders give the site demerits every time they come across a JS chunk....
Same goes for Flash... Not sure about VB though...

I've never heard this in my life, I'm equally interested in reading your source for this information.

Are you getting it confused with it not being able to follow flash (and maybe javascript) hyperlinks? I'm not an expert on the subject but I'd be keen to see a link to a page that justifies the reasoning behind "demeriting" a site for using inline javascript. What would be the point in penalising a site for a bit of javascript?

Also, VB code (unless i'm completely missing the point) never reaches the client at all - it is all for the sole use of the server. How would a spider even have the opportunity to ignore/"demerit" it?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

VBScript is akin to JavaScript, both are client side.

 

[huppy]

VBScript is akin to JavaScript, both are client side.

Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up. Never been aware of clientside VB! I take it its only really supported by IE?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Pretty much. Though I think they are slating it for removal, if they haven't already.

VB.NET however is still a server side (if you are unfortunate enough to use it over ASP.NET)

 

[Augmented]

SE won't see the PHP... so even in the form of your satirical dig, it doesn't hold water

No, but it will see the keyword spam. That's my point. The fact that you can (and should) implement all javascript unobtrusively isn't relevant to yoda's comment that javascript is bad for SEO.

Just because javascript can be used for search-engine spamming techniques and making a site inaccessible to spiders (<a href="#" onclick="...">), it doesn't mean it's any worse than, for example, using PHP. I can use PHP to detect Googlebot, serve it a optimised content-filled SERP-hijacking page, and then serve up a page filled with PPC links to incoming search engine users. Does that make PHP bad for SEO?

Do we get penalised for using Adsense, Analytics, Google Maps...?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

We are discussing different points..

My point:

Having big blocks of Javascript in your content page can be detrimental. Using separated files (for both JS and CSS on a side note) is better than including it all within the same document.

Your point appears to be:

Using "x" to decide who is looking at your page and to change content accordingly.

 

[Augmented]

We are discussing different points..

It would appear so. I am with you on the point of separate files.

Still, I'm not completely agreed that it's got that significant an impact on SEO. I don't believe Google would provide us with lots of tools implemented via inline javascript if they were going to penalise us for it. I'm happy to find out otherwise though.

I wasn't commenting solely on serving up different pages, just that javascript shouldn't be tarnished with the 'BAD' brush because it has the potential to do bad things.

 

[D4VE]

Javascript isn't bad, its good. It adds functionality and is very widely used - it's here to stay.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Tbh, I am sick of SEO being the main stay of web design. I just build my applications to present w3c compliant markup, is 'clean' and easy to maintain, and don't give a toss about SEO.

 

[blade007]

SEO can only bring strangers to you, current clients (if you have a repeat business model) will know you and it won't be needed except to have it come up if you type in the name of the company.

SEO is valuable if you have ecommerce, or service based website where the customer buys one thing, walks away, and not buy again.