| 3:05 pm on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure "all those not affected" is quite as black and white a distinction as you hoped.
I have static content and I've just checked 62 search phrases.
On average I'm up about 15% in terms of the average placing in the SERPS. One or two top spots have gone and I'm second, other top spots have been gained where I used to be number 2.
But as I wrote in another thread yesterday, one page has vanished from one search, except if I add -waffle (or -anything not there). It's still there for other searches....
So I'm not sure that the distinction you ask for actually exists!
| 3:24 pm on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm not that sure what I'm asking either.
One thing I am sure about - the top site in my category has no spiderable text at all. The next 10 pages all appear to be tables within tables with nothing outside the tables.
It was suggested to me that I remove tables within tables because they might hinder my pages visibilty, which is why I was checking it out.
It's almost as if google serps are showing pages with little or no page visibility. The top site aforementioned is only there because other links point to it according to google cache. The words are in the title, but nothing on the page.
Other sites I have notices ranking high are dynamic sites.
I was curious to know if people here who have sites which have remained top have limited visibility (according to the traditional view) - perhaps better to ask if any site which has remained top has no tables or has text outside the tables.
| 3:57 pm on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My serps have remained in the top ten, pre and post Florida. The pages are static. PR bumped up a little.
We have a lot of older pages that uses tables. However most of the content is outside the tables. The style tags have been all stripped out and added to an external css file.
New content doesn't use tables (Thanks to all of you here @WW). The older content when it needs updating is losing the tables.
There doesn't appear to be an advantage to either method.
| 4:00 pm on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
can you sticky me your site. I'd like to look at how you have presented the content without tables.
| 3:01 am on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My site pages have generally moved up.
Visits are 2 1/2 times what they were 2 mos. ago (approaching 1000/day), with 2/3 of the hits on internal pages.
Very few keywords in anchor text ( anchor text might once have been an indicator of relevant content; now it's an indicator of SEO spam used to artificially inflate page rankings).
CONTENT is King. EVERYTHING else revolves around the Content.
[edited by: proton at 5:53 am (utc) on Dec. 7, 2003]
| 3:13 am on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We have improved our position for many search terms across our 250 websites. Nearly all of our sites are dynamic (PHP).
With Florida we initially lost a couple of our major keywords but over the last 24 hours these seem to be coming back.
We have one site that has lost one major commercial keyword. This site has the key word real estate as a file i.e. www.xyzxc.com/realestate (an exception to our common rule)
Our sites are very content laden and generally have domain names with keywords eg Geographic-generic.com. These have done well. Domains with several hyphens eg geographic-generic-widget.com have not done well...but we only have two sites with this type of domain architecture hence it is possible that this is an abberation.
Stemming has also markedly helped us particularly with the plural and non plurral eg maps and map
| 4:31 am on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We lost about 450,000 indexed pages from Google after Dominic, on May 16th. Most of our pages are/were dynamic. After Florida, we got a significant number of those back and it is still growing. We are also seeing higher placement in the serps in some cases higher than we saw prior to Dominic.
The negative experience that many sites are now having with Florida happened to us with Dominic and its taken us 7 months to recover. For our site, Florida has been a real life saver.
| 7:28 am on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> do you have dynamic content
Yes. Most PHP
> and are your sites cached?
Yes. and googlebot coming everyday.
| 2:06 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I use static URLs except in two small areas of my main site. My positions haven't changed at all and as a matter of fact Florida did nothing for me and nothing against me.
I have a simple layout and design methodology using tables and an external CSS. Tables usually aren't the problem when there is good use of a CSS. The problem comes when tables' attribute tags are used entirely too heavily.
Now my URLs may be static but there is a great deal of dynamic content on my site.
| 5:53 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Our sites marginally improved ie we have slightly more traffic now. We just concentrate on content to be honest and not really paid much attention to seo as the requirements always seems to be changing.
Also I thought the final end result of all Googles alogorithms tweakings (probaly not there for several years yet) were to rate sites as if they were 'naturally crerated' as if you were say writing a book or a newspaper article on a subject.
After briefly looking for people to link with we have now stopped and leaving people to find and link to us if they want-from what Iv'e read about recipricol lionking it just seems to be too risky and asking for the wrath of Google.
We have no java no flash, a few tools driven by asp
| 12:59 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|do you have dynamic content, and are your sites cached? |
yep and yep
| 3:28 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Tables usually aren't the problem when there is good use of a CSS. The problem comes when tables' attribute tags are used entirely too heavily. |
Would you mind expanding on that please and maybe point to evidence of this. I use a visual (WYSIWYG) editor for some of my sites. It has been criticised in the past for producing too many table tags. I assumed Googlebot only read what was outside of <tag> when indexing a page content so it didn't matter what was inside <tag> in terms of content indexed.
| 4:24 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a large mixture of dynamic and static content. My sites have remained strong. Yes they're cached.
original quality content + smart subtle keyword placement = long term positive results.
| 5:46 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have some sites that are dynamic and some sites that aren't dynamic (they're static html pages).
Some sites' main pages have remained and some sites' main pages have vanished. Some are dynamic and some are not.
So, I don't necessarily think that that's the reason for them vanishing.
| 5:51 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|do you have dynamic content |
|and are your sites cached? |
| 11:18 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I assumed Googlebot only read what was outside of <tag> when indexing a page content so it didn't matter what was inside <tag> in terms of content indexed. |
I wouldn't assume that at all considering all of the content on my site is inside a table of some sort.