homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.236.46
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 96 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
heading 1 Tags - Still Relevant?
bekyed




msg:156110
 8:39 am on Jul 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Are the heading 1 tags still relevant with google or shall we remove them from our websites completely
What are your feelings on this?

 

Martin Dunst




msg:156170
 11:42 am on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

ruserious,

If you are writing a book (which has to be also a well structured document), you don't cram the whole book into one section, which is named the same as the book's title.

i think having one h1 per document is good.
two or more h1 elements would tell me that splitting the contents (to two or more documents) would maybe be a good idea.

besides, there is a quality tip at w3.org that advocates to use h1 for title [w3.org].

regards
martin

SuzyUK




msg:156171
 12:02 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ok being doing some further research here

Yes <h1> elements are still relevant as to how they perform if used more than once can't answer that.

however I discovered that a page that has the same two keywords (not a exactly mirrored phrase) in the <title>, the <h1> then a subsequent <h2> is doing rather nicely an accident of using correct semantics (serendipity) ;)

also if the new XHTML specs are thinking of replacing <h1> thru <h6> with a single <heading> tag that will surely mean mutiple headings be similarly weighted anyway, unless they "deweight" them as the spiders reach them... (not that we need concern with this yet!)

but I did notice an interesting point or not as the case may be

<h1>part one of phrase<br><span>part two of phrase</span></h1>

the phrase is not indexed in its entirety but each "part" is indexed so is this caused by the <span> or the <br>?

Suzy

<added> of course this could just be the "cycle of the moment"..will need to apply these searches again in 2-3 days time ;)</added>

gilli




msg:156172
 12:14 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey SuzyUK

I think the idea is to nest <heading> and <section>. Eg.

<section>
<heading>Top level heading</heading>
<p>Some content</p>
<section>
<heading>Secondlevel heading</heading>
<p>Some more content</p>
</section>
</section>

So you will still have a heirarchy, it just wont be limited to 6 levels.

martinibuster




msg:156173
 1:21 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

IMHO we already have another unique element which describes what the topic of the page is, it's the <title> element.

In matters of HTML Specifications, opinions take a back seat to what the W3C advises. According to the W3C [w3.org]:
<h1> is the HTML tag for the first-level heading of a document. The title is generally duplicated in an <h1> element towards the top of the page. Unlike the title, this element can include links, emphasis and other HTML phrase elements.

The purpose of the H1 tag is to describe what the topic of the page is, generally echoing the title.

Martin Dunst is correct. If you do some reading in the w3c you will come away with a greater appreciation of what the various elements are there for, will learn how to use them properly.

Funny thing about this, is that Martin's knowledge of proper markup serves him better with the search engines than much of the feverish activity of some folks I've seen on the web who stuff their alt tags, ruin the look of their pages with spammy links, etc.

tedster




msg:156174
 1:48 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

The W3C has been developing AERT (Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools)

This page: [w3.org...]

Has a link to this test file: [w3.org...]

The following headers are not nested properly. They demonstrate:
The first heading is not an H1
Multiple H1 Headers
Header levels increasing by more than 1 level

In other areas of the W3C site -- minutes of meetings, email etc -- the issue of multiple H1 elements has been kicked around a lot. No decision so far that I could find. Probably waiting for a decision on XHTML 2.0 and the <h> and <section> elements.

You might also have some fun with these notes from a teleconference [w3.org]. Scroll down below the mid point of the page for "Proper use of Headers" and you see this conclusion in 2000 (but the debate still seems to go on.)

Resolved: We don't need to check that there is only one H1 per page. This issue is closed. The technique has already been removed from the AERT.

pageoneresults




msg:156175
 2:59 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm still not convinced that using an image within an <h> tag is proper markup. Yes, I'm aware that the DTD makes allowances for it, but I've still not found anything at the W3C that specifically states how to handle an image within an <h> tag.

I see lots of talk about accessibility and users with screen readers. Have you read the Web Content Accessbility Guidelines? Here is what they have to say...

Content developers should use style sheets to style text rather than representing text in images. Using text instead of images means that the information will be available to a greater number of users (with speech synthesizers, braille displays, graphical displays, etc.). Using style sheets will also allow users to override author styles and change colors or fonts sizes more easily.

From the W3C - 3.1 Text instead of images [w3.org]

What happens if you have a user who is color blind and possibly has other visual disabilities. The image wrapped in an <h> does very little for them. Sure, the alt tag is there, but how do you style the <h> tag with an aural cascading style sheet [w3.org] if there is no text to style?

In the following example, the value of the "alt" attribute for the IMG element is rendered after the image (visually, aurally, etc.):

img:after{content:attr(alt);}

When reading through the Accessibility Guidelines, it is repeated throughout various sections that you follow the standards...

When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information.

If accessibility is what you are after, then using alt text on an image in an <h> tag may not be the best approach. In fact, I'm still a firm believer that it is not good practice to use an image within an <h> tag. Unless of course you've followed all the accessbility guidelines. And if you've done that, you just added all sorts of code, both in your html and your style sheet just to achieve the same effect as using plain ole' text! ;)

BTW, just for reference, <h> elements can contain any inline element.

ruserious




msg:156176
 4:08 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Two people have quoted this link: [w3.org...] and tedster has already given a good answer on that issue, saying it has been discussed, but to no definite conclusion.

However I want to comment on the note, in full it reads (my emphasis):

<h1> is the HTML tag for the first-level heading of a document.

The title is generally duplicated in an <h1> element towards the top of the page. Unlike the title, this element can include links, emphasis and other HTML phrase elements.

Often, webmasters will use an <h2> element instead, to make the heading smaller. This is incorrect, Cascading Style Sheets should be used to create this effect.

I really think that "generally" says it all. It does not say, it is required, and it does not say it is better; it just states that that is how it is generally used, not how it should exclusivly be used.

ALso this only talks about one way: The title is reflected in <h1>, nothing about the other way. (Basic Logic says: If a => b, you still cannot say anything about b => a).

The second paragraph makes it clear, that the main message is using <h>'s for structure, rather than "looks/ default rendering".

Seeing all this ambiguos sentences on the W3C pages, just goes to prove that it is far from being clearly defined, and thus up to opinion.

Yes, it may be a good idea to split pages, if you have to (structurally) use zwo <h1>s, but in other cases it may not (e.g. if all the content from different sections fits perfectly on one page/browser-screen.) You don't have to normalize web-pages, like relational db-schemas. ;)

SuzyUK




msg:156177
 5:27 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I realise this thread has gone a bit further than the original topic, and I believe the original question has been answered now, but I still think this may be an interesting topic for others like myself who "don't do SEO", but need to understand if by doing something like text/image swaps in a design capacity, we might inadvertently trip SE filters...

pageoneresults you might like to read this:
A Specification is not a User Manual [alistapart.com]
The purpose of a 'spec' is to tell programmers who will implement the technology what features it must have, and how they are to be implemented.

so to me this means if the specs are telling us inline elements can be contained within heading elements, and img is an inline element, what is there not to implement?

then to answer the other point you made would this not cover the different medias?

<h1><img src="logo.jpg" alt="logo text here" /><span>logo text here</span></h1>

(obviously the alt text would be the same as the text inside the span)

then set screen media for h1 span to display:none; but set the aural CSS speak property to none for the image and normal for the span?

Yes you could use text but what about using an image made from a non-standard font, design is here to stay and these CSS properties have been introduced for reason, so I think this covers users needs and complies with the specs too.. and SE's should still be happy too.

tedster I think you said in this thread or another I've been reading perhaps... that older research you had done showed that <h3> had no extra weighting, <h2> had a little and <h1> had more?

If so I believe this still to be the case but only if they're used in the correct structure as is recommended..i.e. <title>,<h1>, <h2>

I tested some pages that had this structure and rank as expected for <h1>, <h2> however these pages then had <h4> headings in use (<h3 missing) the <h4> text ranked no better than normal text...

gilli thanks for explaing that I haven't got that far in my reading yet ;)

Suzy

Marcia




msg:156178
 5:42 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Going back again to the original question,

Are the heading 1 tags still relevant with google or shall we remove them from our websites completely

Heading 1 tags are still relevant. The general consensus is that using them, properly written and in conjunction with other factors used in scoring web pages, generally helps with scoring overall. Whether or not they're relevant with Google at any time, or how much, which can always change, shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not to remove them. Even if they don't count at any given time, they might in the future because they're meant to be an indicator of a page's relevance. So the safest route is to do what's best for the page and for users.

I'm interpreting the original question as further asking whether *not* using the heading-1 will hurt rankings; whether a page will rank better with the H1 than it would if the H1 were omitted.

As with any of the many factors that go into determining the relevancy of web pages, the weight given to any element relative to all the elements used can be increased or decreased at any time - and changed again at any time.

Some of us believe that H1 is markup that's used for formatting text that differentiates that section of text from regular body text and serves the purpose of indicating what the primary topic and content of a given page is about.

Some people also believe that a page will probably rank better, all things considered, if H1 is used than it would if H1 were not used. It isn't always the case that pages using H1 rank better than competitors' pages that don't though, which doesn't tell us much.

SuzyUK:
this may be an interesting topic for others like myself who "don't do SEO", but need to understand if by doing something like text/image swaps in a design capacity, we might inadvertently trip SE filters...

The W3C can set and write the standards, but what they don't know and what they can't do is determine how any of the elements they describe and set standards for will be used and/or exploited by some individuals. If they could they could be writing search engine algorithms instead of HTML standards and conventions.

heini




msg:156179
 6:36 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

The W3C can set and write the standards, but what they don't know and what they cannot do is determine how any of the elements they describe and set standards for will be used and/or exploited by some individuals.

True Marcia BUT: SEs don't look primarily at what get's exploited. They can't afford to.
SEs look primarily at what data do we have?
They can only work with what they get. What they get is influenced in a small part by the way they analyse and rank. But the vast majority of docs they have to analyse and rank is not seo'ed. The structure and content on probably 99% of all docs is far more influenced by defacto standards of webpublishing.
That's why I certainly think the POV of coders and bodies occupied with formalizing and standardizing coding is valid and important for the SEs and thus also for the SEOs.

jamesa




msg:156180
 7:07 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Obviously a properly marked up document will be easier for a machine to parse, and that's really the whole point: make it as easy as possible for Google to "understand" the page, regardless of the algo weightings of individual elements at the moment.

However - and this is just speculation - I would imagine that the W3C specs are not the only way to mark up a page that Google will understand. Why? Because most of the pages I've seen on the web (especially non-academia) are not properly marked up, and it seems logical that Google would attempt to define markup elements based on their common usage in addition to their proper usage.

So the following two examples might be identical to Google (this is just speculation remember):

<h1>document title</h1>
<p>text text text...</p>
<h2>sub heading</h2>
<p>text text text...</p>

vs.

<b><font size=+2>document title</font></b><br>
<br>
text text text...
<b><font size=+1>sub heading</font></b><br>
<br>
text text text...

steveb




msg:156181
 7:15 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Okay, color me an html moron, but a comment above concerns me. I have:

<h1><b><font face="Verdana">title word or words</font></b></h1>

Is use of bold in the h1 bad? (I use bold throughout my site for readability so naturally the h1 is bolded too.)

pageoneresults




msg:156182
 7:21 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is use of bold in the h1 bad?

I wouldn't say that it was bad, just not proper from my perspective. The <h> tags are bold (strong) by default. There is no need to add additional code to achieve boldness to any tags that are bold by default. Table headings (<th>) are also bold by default and I see many who wrap the text in <b> tags.

In regards to semantics, <strong> is the preferred markup as opposed to <b>. Just as <em> is preferred over <i>. The two produce the same visual effect, but are presented differently based on the user-agent.

g1smd




msg:156183
 8:04 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you think of each page of your site as being a complete chapter of a story, and you put the chapter number inside <h1> tags at the top of the page, then you would never have more than one set of <h1> tags per page.

.

From the example above:

<h1>kw kw kw</h1>
<p>blah blah blah <a href="kw.htm">kw link text </a>blah kw</p>

<h2>kw subheading <h2/>
<p>different text <a href="kw.htm">kw link text </a>blah kw</p>

<h3>kw subheading <h3/>
<p>different text <a href="kw.htm">kw link text </a>blah kw and text</p>

<h4>kw subheading <h4/>
<p>different text <a href="kw.htm">kw link text </a>blah kw and other text</p>

I have to ask - Why are the numbers getting larger on each new heading?

After <h1> all of the other headings, if of equal importance, would all be marked as <h2>.

The numbering is defining the level of importance not actually numbering them.

If you are using the tags in the manner you described above, like:

<h1>
<h2>
<h3>
<h4>

then it is akin to numbering paragraphs in a traditional document as:

1.
1.1.
1.1.1.
1.1.1.1.

and never reaching paragraph number 1.2 let alone number 2. in the sequence.

In your example, you have actually assigned less and less importance to each paragraph going down the page.

If you had been writing a traditional paper document where the paragraphs would have been numbered like this

1.
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.

then as all of the sub-paragraphs, are numbered to the same depth then they would all have an <h2> tag applied like this:

<h1>
<h2>
<h2>
<h2>
<h2>

The number in the heading tag is measuring the nesting depth of the information, not numbering the paragraphs themselves.

steveb




msg:156184
 9:02 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

"There is no need to add additional code to achieve boldness to any tags that are bold by default."

Doh. I guess I never looked. Got a bunch of deleting to do today...

What about <u> and </u>? I know they aren't underlined by default, and sometimes headings look more appropriate underlined. Is that acceptable?

tedster




msg:156185
 9:21 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would suggest using CSS.

H1 {
text-decoration:underline;
}

or, if you only want some instances underscored, then go inline:

<h1 style="text-decoration:underline">

I never feel comfortable about nesting any tags inside an H1. Spiders, algorithms, etc. can be confused by code and you'll never know it -- so I keep everything as "clean" as I can to get my message across.

[edited by: tedster at 9:22 pm (utc) on July 7, 2003]

TravelMan




msg:156186
 9:21 pm on Jul 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

g1smd.

Yes, what you said makes sense. Thanks for the viewpoint.

>I have to ask - Why are the numbers getting larger on each new heading?

For reasons loosely related to taking what I thought was the safest route, I opted for the h1 h2 h3 h4 etc approach for the main page as opposed to h1, h2, h2 h2 etc partly for experimentation, and partly for the very reasons outlined in this thread with regard to the apparent conflicting views of what is correct and what is incorrect hn usage.

Its threads like this that help clarify issues, and assist in reaching a consenus around what is and what is not correct.

We live and learn :)

<edit> clarity called</edit>

ChrisKud5




msg:156187
 3:12 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

What will Google Think of this

<h1> SOME HEADING TEXT OF THE PAGE </h1>
<body>
<div id="Layer With Image of H1 Text>
<img src="IMAGE WITH H1 YEXT>

I want to use <h1> tags to improve ranking, yet i also want to keep my current image layout that contains the pages heading. If images are disabled by the user, the H1 text will show through, providing the heading text for the page, and utilizing the <h1> tag which is given favor by Google.

If this may incur a penalty, what is the best way to use images for layout, and get the maximum benifit of text, if it is from <h1> or alt tags.

Thanks all

daamsie




msg:156188
 3:24 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chriskud, your code example is not advisable, as it is essentially creating hidden text for the search engines and as such can be penalized and will likely be filtered out anyway.

If you want to use images, you may want to repeat the text in the images on the page in a H1 tag to get maximum benefit or otherwise you simply have to let the image's alt text do the job.

From my own personal view, I wouldn't stress out too much about missing an opportunity to put a keyword in a H1 tag. There are a lot more influential things in the ranking algo like incoming link text and the title tag to concentrate on first. If after exhausting those options you still can't beat your competitor, you may want to consider getting rid of the image and just using H1 text instead. But in my opinion the most important thing to do (besides some good content) is get LOTS of quality incoming links with your prime keywords in them - certainly not an easy task :-)

martinibuster




msg:156189
 3:32 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

utilizing the <h1> tag which is given favor by Google.

Utilizing?

[edited by: martinibuster at 3:39 am (utc) on July 8, 2003]

Marcia




msg:156190
 3:33 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

ChrisKud, is that "heading" type image used only on the main homepage, or throughout the site? Is it a logo type image, or is there a different one that's used descriptively for individual pages?

Martin Dunst




msg:156191
 8:08 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

pageoneresults,

i'm referring to your accessibility message and i must say i agree.
sorry if this post is slightly off topic, still i think it might be of interest.

i've digged through w3.org lists, where the topic "textual images" is covered.
in fact, there is an accessibility hurdle with textual images:

kynn bartlett says in w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from October to December 2000: Re: consensus? [lists.w3.org]:
The problem is that even with alt text intact, and even with appropriate semantics, graphical text _does not resize for low vision users_.

i think this is a very good point.
the image's alt text (i.e. when images are turned off) might resize without loss of quality, but the image itself will not.

pageoneresults says:
If accessibility is what you are after, then using alt text on an image in an <h> tag may not be the best approach.

ack.

regards
martin

gilli




msg:156192
 8:43 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Second that - if you are really after accessibility then text nav & text titles are a must (among other things). However this is often not possible (I've been having long running battles with my graphic artist over this stuff, sometimes he wins). In these cases I think good fallback markup and including good alt text makes a huge difference.

Another things is we (or a few of us here) are not just talking about screen readers and blind people here - we are really talking about anything other than modern web browsers on desktop computers. Think blog aggregators (and broader syndication), PDA/WAP, print, text-only browsers, robots and so on.

350px by 100px 72dpi gif images don't translate very well into any of these media.

BTW - I think:

<h1><span class="hideMe">Blue Widgets</span><img src="blue_widgets_title.gif" alt="Blue Widgets"></h1>

---

span.hideMe { diplay:none; }

is completely valid & probably best practice (if you must have the image) but its probably overkill in most cases.

Martin Dunst




msg:156193
 10:05 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

gilli,

as far as i have understood, you can go for accessiblity even when using textual images.
you can even claim "WCAG Conformance Level A" if all priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied, as the "text instead of images" part seems to refer to priority 2 checkpoints.

on principle, i still agree with pageoneresults' statement.

<h1><span class="hideMe">Blue Widgets</span><img src="blue_widgets_title.gif" alt="Blue Widgets"></h1>

have you ever tested this in lynx?
i have, the outcome is: "Blue Widgets Blue Widgets".
keep in mind that there's user agents with no css support.

regards
martin

gilli




msg:156194
 11:00 am on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Martin, I agree with you. We're getting into some of the finer details here but I think in principle we are on the same track.

as far as i have understood, you can go for accessiblity even when using textual images.
you can even claim "WCAG Conformance Level A" if all priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied, as the "text instead of images" part seems to refer to priority 2 checkpoints.

Yes you can use textual images and pass WAI guidlines and Section 508 guildlines. I still don't think this makes pages with textual images more accessible than those with text in plain text. I'm not saying "text-only" is appropriate in all or even most cases, but if you are asking yourself "does that really need to be an image?" you are probably on the right track.

have you ever tested this in lynx?
i have, the outcome is: "Blue Widgets Blue Widgets".
keep in mind that there's user agents with no css support.

Kinda ugly isn't it. But still you have to draw a line somewhere - for me the line is somewhere around HTML4/CSS1. I guess I have a bias towards thinking forwards rather than backwards and supporting for the standards. Maybe its just Zeldman's propaganda getting to me. Having said that I do think lynx is a pretty important piece of software, but still I think lynx users can live with this inconvenience. The inconvenience might even encourage agents to move forward or users to upgrade where possible.

BTW I can point to W3C docs that support both of positions, sticky me if you want them - I'd rather not split hairs in public :)

Look, I make pages everyday and I don't always stick by the best practice accessibility, it depends a lot on audience, budget and so on. I also often get fustrated by the massive gap between theortical best practice and the real world of messed up user agent support for standards. But I think things are improving. If you spend too much time worrying about the user who is stuck on an agent with poor standards support and/or has an impairment there will never be any forward motion.

I do think there is a nice balance in there somewhere and using <h> tags properly is a pretty easy step in that direction. The example I posted up before (img title + text title and selectively hiding one based on the media) is probably more an example of best practice css/usability rather than real world accessibility.

jamesa




msg:156195
 7:07 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just for the record, Zeldman preaches accessibility for all user-agents regardless of their capability. User-agents that implement CSS1/2 properly will get nicer layout, but any device should be able access the site. Zeldman put the extra effort in to make his site read well on Lynx, screen readers, etc.

ChrisKud5




msg:156196
 7:09 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi All,
Marcia- The heading is a "template", but the top image text changes for whatever page it is, so it is the heading for that page. It would look a little strange to have a big graphic at the top with the heading, and then a visible <h1> tag below that saying the same thing.

daamsie- I am not "hidding text", the text is NOT the same color as the background. THe background is white, the text is black. I am "repeating" the text that is contained in the image in an <h1> tag, but that H1 tag text is only visable by the user if the images are turned off (if the images are turned on, the H1 text is covered by the image, which says the same thing, but in an image.

Since googlebot scans through code, how will it know the location on the page of an <H1> tag in relation to the location of another item, such as a layer containing an image? The <H1> tag has no properties that set its location (such as "style="position:absolute; left:1px; top:1px; width:206px; height:93px; z-index:4">)

Since the text color does not match the background color of the page, why would it be considered "hidden text"? Does googlebot "build" layouts of pages as it scans them to check for overlapping items, and penalize accodingly?

martinibuster- Yes, Utilizing, as in "I want to utilize the <h1> tags for my site."

DrOliver




msg:156197
 7:32 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you want to use a nice header font, you could use background-images.

Like so:

<h1 id="csstricks"><span>CSS tricks</span></h1>

In your CSS:

h1.csstricks{background:transparent url(/images/header/backgrounds/csstricks.gif) no-repeat top left;}
h1 span{display:none;}
or
h1 span{visibility:hidden;}

When this CSS gets imported (@import), most users with CSS-capable browsers will see your nice header fonts graphic, all others, inlcuding SEs and Netscape 4 or other CSS-noncapable browsers, will see the plain text.

Now, if you don't use the same text for the <span> and the image, you're in danger. This would not pass human review. And rightly so.

I'm not quite sure what happens when users with CSS-capable browser turn off images though.

You can see the same technic used here:
[csszengarden.com ]

g1smd




msg:156198
 11:06 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Don't forget that the @import command MUST be the very first item after the <script> tag. I got caught out by that the other day. Use this:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css">
@import url(path/file.css);
</style>

Do validate the CSS using [jigsaw.w3.org...] as well.

martinibuster




msg:156199
 11:50 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

as in "I want to utilize the <h1> tags for my site." -because Google favors it-

I think you may be losing sight of what the heading element is for, which is much more than a tool for cracking Google's algo and shooting to the top of the serps.

That's what I meant by, "utilizing?"

gilli




msg:156200
 11:50 pm on Jul 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

jamesa - Check your sticky.

DrOliver - Thats a huge improvement on my method. Very nice.

This 96 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 96 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved