homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.68.109
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: phranque & physics

Webmaster General Forum

This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 ( [1] 2 > >     
Can the spider follow my nav menu links?
quarryshark




msg:3221163
 4:57 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Redoing my site and wondering if the spider can find the links on the navigation menu since the links do not physically appear on the HTML page.
The tags look like this
<!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="includes/search.htm" tag="BODY" --></td>

The home page and most of the second tier pages are done, just want to make sure i'm doing it right before I proceed.

[edited by: jatar_k at 12:01 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2007]
[edit reason] no urls thanks [/edit]

 

wilderness




msg:3221496
 9:58 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Using Front Page and/or FP Componets to create pages is a BAD idea.

jimbeetle




msg:3221516
 10:24 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

quarryshark, you've only looked at the source in the Frontpage editor itself so you didn't see the whole picture.

In the editor you only see the include page statement. However, when the page is saved, all of the content of the included page is included in the saved page. No matter how many includes you use on a page it is standalone and contains all of the appropriate content.

Access one of your live pages from the server and select "View Source" from the browser menu. You should see something like this:

<!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="includes/search.htm" tag="BODY" startspan-->

Then all the content from the included page here.

<!--webbot bot="Include" i-checksum="32625" endspan -->

So, the links and any other content are there. If the links are in a spiderable format the 'bots will follow them.

quarryshark




msg:3221524
 10:31 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thanks, yup I see it now. Duh....lol.

BTW, whats wrong with FP? Besides I'm kinda stuck with it, I believe the template was created with FP.
I downloaded the MS Expression Web Design (beta), but am still playing with it.

jimbeetle




msg:3221578
 11:18 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

BTW, whats wrong with FP?

There's nothing at all wrong with it -- now. It did take a pretty bad hit some years ago (partly justified, partly not). MS did steadily improve it. Quite a few folks on this board use it to build fairly robust sites. Like any tool, all it takes is learning how to use it.

wilderness




msg:3221610
 11:48 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

BTW, whats wrong with FP? Besides I'm kinda stuck with it, I believe the template was created with FP.

The version of FP your using is not the latest.

FP uses deprecated mark up.
Inserts tags unecessarily and leaves many tags open in error (and I'm not just referring to </p>).

The add-in components don't work in all browsers.

1) Open a MS-Word document (or any other MS product)
2) Copy a paragraph
3) Open FP
4) Paste the paragraph into FP
5) View the crap in html

Anybody that uses FP for anything other than a text editor (and even that requires caution) needs to be commited.

pageoneresults




msg:3221612
 11:49 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Anybody that uses FP for anything other than a text editor (and even that requires caution) needs to be commited.

I take great offense to that!

You should first learn about the program before inserting foot in mouth. ;)

wilderness




msg:3221615
 11:50 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

There's nothing at all wrong with it -- now. It did take a pretty bad hit some years ago (partly justified, partly not). MS did steadily improve it. Quite a few folks on this board use it to build fairly robust sites. Like any tool, all it takes is learning how to use it.

Anybody who encourages others to use FP should be commited along with those that use it ;)

pageoneresults




msg:3221619
 11:52 pm on Jan 16, 2007 (gmt 0)

Anybody who encourages others to use FP should be commited along with those that use it.

We are committed.

Committed to producing high quality FrontPage managed websites.

wilderness




msg:3221640
 12:06 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

You should first learn about the program before inserting foot in mouth

Before you insinuate where anothers foot is located?
Perhaps you should take both your feet out of your own mouth.

it did take a pretty bad hit some years ago (partly justified, partly not).

The hits the FP took were not in fact the fault of FP at all, rather Ms-Word created web pages and MS users copying and pasting Word created text into FP.

I spent two years in Word NG's chasing MSVP's who were encouraging people to use Word in creation of web pages. (That policy and those suggestions have since changed).

Had MS (in their depth of knowledge) had the foresight to place limitations on the importing of their other products into FP?
Than FP would likley have survived and prospered into a useable tool.
Instead, FP was banished to hell and separated from the MS-Office package and replaced with the LAST version of FP which has since been banished to hell aslo and replaced by another product.
All the while retaining deprecated mark-up and tags.

Whether the latest product is a new home for more crap has yet to be determined.

wilderness




msg:3221641
 12:08 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Committed to producing high quality FrontPage managed websites.

That's an oxymoron that should go in the record books ;)

pageoneresults




msg:3221642
 12:08 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Have "you" ever used FrontPage?

wilderness




msg:3221649
 12:18 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Have "you" ever used FrontPage?

For more than eight years, however in a very limited capacity and only as a text editor.

About three years ago, I ceased using FP entirely for the creation of new pages.

I have two extensive sections on one website that utilize frames in a rare and proper design. (text and images in colums, where the images are related to the text of the same row.)

I do sympathize with the need for a tool that allows users to create pages in seconds or minutes, however until a WYSIWYG product comes along that creates "valid" mark up?
These tools are better left abandoned.

pageoneresults




msg:3221659
 12:28 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

however until a WYSIWYG product comes along that creates "valid" mark up? These tools are better left abandoned.

I really hate to hijack this topic.

Its not the program that produces valid markup. Its the user! The program is a tool. The user needs to know how to use the tool.

wilderness




msg:3221665
 12:36 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Its not the program that produces valid markup. Its the user!

Pray tell, inform us on how to instruct users that are not even aware of what deprecated mark up is, on how to remove the five examples below from the FP created page in the URL originally provided?

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="149" id="table1">

<font color="#FF9208">

<td>&nbsp;</td>

p>&nbsp;<p>&nbsp;<p>&nbsp;<p>

<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

RedTCat




msg:3221683
 12:53 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think someone has been in the wilderness too long!

People who don't understand the finer points of HTML (incidentally, they are often the folk who will copy and paste from one place to another) will be unlikely to care what apparently erroneous stuff FP adds to a page. They will be quite happy to post dozens of 6mb photos of their pets, resized by the width and height attrubiutes, on their web sites... no problem... they will be happy with the results!

I've used FP for 10 years ... despite a few minor glitches (and you can expect that with *any* software or process) it's never caused me any trouble.

pageoneresults




msg:3221691
 12:56 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Pray tell, inform us on how to instruct users that are not even aware of what deprecated mark up is, on how to remove the five examples below from the FP created page in the URL originally provided?

As with any tool, there are instuctions. And, as with any tool, most people will find a way to produce what it is that they want using that tool. Whether or not instructions were/are being followed. ;)

quarryshark




msg:3221724
 1:45 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow, I guess I opened a can of worm...lol
This site was created with an old version of FP about 8 years ago, I am now using 2003 and even playing with thier new Beta "Expressions. MS, is what I know how to use and I don't have time to learn a new program as I am a 1 man show.
I am redoing the site with the hopes of overcoming old HTMP obsolescence (using CSS, etc).
I have to copy a lot from the old site and trying to clean up the old crap, but am not a professional. My site sits pretty well in the SE's and I don't want to hurt my ranking by making radical changes.
What could I remove from this page that may be hurting me? This is my home page.
Thanks in advance!

[edited by: jatar_k at 2:22 am (utc) on Jan. 17, 2007]
[edit reason] removed code dump [/edit]

wilderness




msg:3221793
 3:28 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

What could I remove from this page that may be hurting me?

The most effective solution that would enhance your SE listings would be move your indexes which are currently spidered prior to your data.
1) View source and you will see what I'm referring to (or as
html in FP).
2) Use a Lynx Viewer to see your page (s) the same way a
crawing spider does and you'll see the same result(all
those indexes are crawled before your page data.)
3) CSS is the most effective correction for these issues.
(NOT FP's CSS either)

Afterwards you may then address the FP bloated issues.
1) Become aware of deprecated html
2) redsign your pages in CSS with the same appearnce (or as
close as possible) to what you currently have and/or
desire, however changing the underlying html structure.
(It may not be possible and you may need to consider
another layout appearance.)

The five examples that I provided as deprecated html are some easy beginnings for you to explore as corrections in your html.

quarryshark




msg:3221809
 4:12 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thanks wilderness. I appreciate the advise, honesty and will further explore. SEO was much easier 6-7 years ago (damn , I was an authority then...lol). I need to update my thinking as well as my execution. Being self employed does not allow me much time to adjust, but I know there is the need. Preferably I would like to do so with a program I am comfortable with.
The online order are still rolling in, but I am also aware if I don't make some adjustments, I will get crushed by aggressive competition with deep pockets who do use SEO firms. I have been surviving on good service and reputation, but Google, MSN and Yahoo do not recognize that's.
Change is tough and tends to sneak up on you if you are not watching. I guess I need to go back to school.
Thanks all for you input, I hope you don't mind if I pick you brains from time to time.

bill




msg:3221824
 4:27 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I just have to jump in here and say that it is a simple matter of your proficiency with the tool. I've made many table-less sites that are 100% valid HTML/XHTML and CSS with various versions of FrontPage. All the FUD here about bloated code and the like are unnecessary and untrue.

Just because one chooses to use FP, DW, Notepad or other software doesn't mean they're going to make better code. They're just tools. Used properly they will produce perfectly good code.

wilderness




msg:3221837
 5:00 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hip! Hip Horay!

Another person encouraging newcomers to use FP to create crap.

The problem is that for every user that learns to create web pages with FP properly and by closely forming with current standards of html?

There are thousands (and far more) of others who create pure crap by utilizing click, click, click and believing that they have presented an effective web page.

Any stamp of approval, merely provides acceptance of the crap, regardless of what steps effective and/or learned users to conform to current standards.

Perhaps this is where we should provide a link to FPE and a link to the instructions of how to install that limited FP software on XP and Vista ;)

BTW, why on earth was this thread moved to forum 11?

pageoneresults




msg:3221856
 5:54 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are thousands (and far more) of others who create pure crap by utilizing click, click, click and believing that they have presented an effective web page.

And might we ask which WYSIWYG program you would recommend to quarryshark? Now, keep in mind that quarryshark has already stated that they are not a seasoned coder. So, taking that into consideration, what would be your tool of choice?

For more than eight years, however in a very limited capacity and only as a text editor.

That answers my question, you've never really used FrontPage.

wilderness




msg:3221876
 6:23 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

And might we ask which WYSIWYG program you would recommend to quarryshark? Now, keep in mind that quarryshark has already stated that they are not a seasoned coder. So, taking that into consideration, what would be your tool of choice?

NOT a one has been made that functions properly.

That answers my question, you've never really used FrontPage.

We've been here before!
Your time would be more productive finding a way to eliminate the five common deprecated and bloated html errors that I provided from quarryshark's page.

In another moment you'll have quarryshark believing these problems exist because of something he's done wrong or his personal incapabilites, rather than yourself losing face and just admit the same errors occur for you (by FP default)and that FP is crap.

If it's so damn good and produces such quality pages?
Perhaps you'll be able to convince MS to add the software back into their product line and Office Suite ;)

BTW, here's some reading for your spare time (when your not correcting deprecated html):

[groups.google.com...]

bill




msg:3221935
 8:32 am on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe you should spend a little bit of time reading our own WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors [webmasterworld.com] forum. There are plenty of informed, rational threads in there that help people work with WYSIWYG software to create perfectly valid code.

pageoneresults




msg:3222163
 1:13 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

NOT a one has been made that functions properly.

Ah-ha, I see where this is going. You'd like to see quarryshark use Notepad, huh?

Your time would be more productive finding a way to eliminate the five common deprecated and bloated html errors that I provided from quarryshark's page.

We've been here before!

Things to be aware of when using FrontPage
[webmasterworld.com...]

In another moment you'll have quarryshark believing these problems exist because of something he's done wrong or his personal incapabilites, rather than yourself losing face and just admit the same errors occur for you (by FP default)and that FP is crap.

I've only lost face here a couple of times and this surely isn't one of them. ;) By the way, those errors don't occur for me by default. Please do explain.

This site was created with an old version of FP about 8 years ago.

Remember, this site was created 8 years ago. That puts us at FrontPage 98 or FrontPage 2000. Many of us FrontPage users are well aware of FP's shortcomings in earlier versions. But, most of those shortcomings came from improper use of the program.

BTW, here's some reading for your spare time (when your not correcting deprecated html):

I've not had to correct deprecated HTML from FrontPage since before 2000 (Y2K). ;)

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22frontpage%22&qt_s=Search

lol! I can do that too!

[groups.google.com...]

quarryshark, don't let the trolls scare you off. It is your choice to use the program that best suits your needs. In this case, FrontPage is a great tool if used properly.

P.S. Hey wilderness, Google uses deprecated HTML. They must be using FrontPage to manage www.google.com, huh?

quarryshark




msg:3222263
 3:00 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Actually I used 98 until about a year ago. I downloaded expression and I guess I need to play with that since it seems that is the future.
I'm not planning on becoming a coding pro, just need to optimize my site while I do the redesign.
Will get busy reading on the WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors forum and other areas suggested.
Thanks all for the help.

wilderness




msg:3222282
 3:11 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe you should spend a little bit of time reading our own WYSIWYG and Text Code Editors forum. There are plenty of informed, rational threads in there that help people work with WYSIWYG software to create perfectly valid code.

Thanks anyway.

With the excpetion of 2-3 threads, the majority of my participation at Webmaster World has been confined to forum 11.
Ocassionally I pop in on Jim's Apache Server forum.

Had this thread NOT been moved to forum 11, I would have never even seen it.

quarryshark




msg:3222318
 3:33 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hey pageoneresults. I was reading your post on resetting preferences of FP to help clean up my coding. I reset my preferences, no problem. But when I go to the next step

"While in Normal View go to Tools > Page Options > HTML Source > Reformat using the rules below (hopefully your new preferences).

Now switch to HTML View go to Tools > Page Options > HTML > Preserve existing HTML. "

There is no HTML source option. I am using FP03, is there a different way of doing it with this version?

pageoneresults




msg:3222325
 3:37 pm on Jan 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Ah, it is referred to as code view in FP 2003.

This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
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