Forum Moderators: open
IE = Google
Opera = AV
Mozilla = Ink
Netscape = ATW
[Content in brackets = SEO]
[Content without brackets = WBO]
Every body optimizes for IE, most commonly used browser (Google, most commonly used SE), and forget to check their pages in Opera, Mozilla and Netscape (AV, INK and ATW), which results bad rendering (bad placement) for Opera , Mozilla and Netscape users (AV, INK and ATW users)
IE is loosing its popularity, many people have stopped using IE due to Spyware/Adware (same as Google = Florida update), IE is still the best web browser (Google is still the best search engine), but still, people have started using (SEOing) for Opera, Mozilla and Netscape (AV, ATW and Ink)
I'm sure you'll find this post confusing, but if you put your mind into this post, you'll see what I mean ;)
Sid
Lets just hope Google doesn't totally sell out like its SEO counterpart(it may have done it already?!).
A greater uptake of an alternative search engine (eg ALW)and browser (eg Netscape) should be a good thing..theres too much dominance out there.
How did you match the 'rest'? E.g. is there a reason ATW is Netscsape? Are you predicting ATW's demise soon?
And I agree with Farix. IE is 'just' the most popular browser, but by far not the best. IMHO it is the second worst. Which makes a comparison with Google somehow wrong, as Google may have angered many people with Florida, but they still are to be placed among the best SEs.
[edited by: sidyadav at 11:32 pm (utc) on Dec. 6, 2003]
I'm honestly not terribly knowledgeable about SEO, but it seems to me you're making a weak comparison.
What exactly do you mean by optimizing? Is it using proprietary "enhancements" to "create a richer user experience?"
IMO that's the only type of optimizing you can do for IE. While many (most) sites are "optimized" for IE, usually it's just a combination of carelessness/ignorance that results in sloppy code and bad rendering.
You can optimize for "standards," and I consider this a much more legitimate and responsible approach. This may mean your site will look better in a modern, superior browser (sorry, that's not IE ;)) but it should not lose any vital functionality in reasonably recent browsers.
What exactly do you mean by optimizing?
This has happened to me many times, when I create a page, I only check it in IE, but after a few days, when I tryout Opera, I get many mouse-over errors.
Try going to WebmasterWorld in Opera, put your mouse over the right menu, with the forum list. You'll see the mouseover a little bit tilted/ugly, do the same in IE, which page view do you like the most? IE (everything looks good) or Opera (mouseover tilted)?
Sid
Uhm, yes. But maybe you can direct me?
>but if you put your mind into this post, you'll see what I mean ;)
How many bottles i'll need?
Seriously, what's your point?
You think different se's use different css, html markup?
You think different se's target different browser users?
Where's the bridge to florida?
Uhm, i think i'm lost here.
Mods, feel free to delete this thread.
Sid
I "put my mind into this post" and am in full agreement. Ignore the literalist nit-pickers who do not understand the concept of "analogy"! ;)
I'll jump right in amongst the sharks and alligators and take your analogy one step further (a fool rushes in ..):
A web site is your business address - big surprise! :)
So run it like a business and look at browsers, search engines, directories, standards, etc. from a business perspective.
Browsers provide two distinct things:
1. A method of seeing that allows the customer to access your shop window, display shelving, and checkout counter.
Question: Do you care that (however few) potential customers decide not to spend time/money with you because they can't see you?
Answer: You should. A web business is a world business. A percentage of customers can number in the thousands, even in the millions; ignoring them is simply stupid (or lazy).
Remember: You want every single potential customer on earth to like what they see and buy what you offer - or why are you making the effort?
It is why I code to w3c standards and encourage my clients to improve accessibilty, etc.
2. A method of transportation that brings the customer to your door.
Currently most shoppers are coming by IE (aka by automobile) but do you have no interest in those who might prefer to walk, take a bus, etc.? Of course not. So why do so many (including people here at WebmasterWorld whose advice and skills have helped me greatly) so readily dismiss all other forms of transportation (other browsers). I can understand not having a livery stable but if someone rides up (aka Brett with Mozaic and his three "cutting edge" friends with Opera 3.62) [webmasterworld.com] I will hold the reins for as long as they want to visit (buy!).
Remember: At one time everyone came by horse (Mozaic/Netscape) - what are you going to do when they come by transporter beam instead of by automobile (IE)? Have a Going Out Of Business Sale?
The difficulty of reaching new customers is such that I refuse to ignore any of my old ones whether they walk or ride, drive or materialize! This is why I design my pages to degrade plainly if not always as artistically as I might want. It is also why I hang out here to stay abreast of the latest and greatest and bestest, etc.
Search engines and Directories are the web equivalent of "phone listings" and "display advertising" so that people can know that you are there.
Question: Do brick & mortar shops only list in their local white pages, advertise only in their local yellow pages or in only one newspaper's classifieds?
Answer: They advertise everywhere they can expect to get a customers attention with a reasonable ROI to the limit of their budget.
Currently most of your customers show up through Google. They used to arrive largely from Alta Vista - SE and Yahoo - Directory; some still do. Ideally you want good visibility in every search engine and every directory out there. Frankly, my dear, if it's free its worth the effort. If there is cost involved (AdWords, Overture, etc.) do a perpetual "value" analysis and spend your budget accordingly.
You need to be concerned not only with now but also for tomorrow and every other day after. Or you won't be there. That's business, that's life. It's called evolution: survival of the fittest, adapt or die. (My apologies about that last bit of melodrama - I couldn't resist ;)
Actually, good point by both Sid (who is pointing out that maybe we spend too much time SEOing and insufficient time on browser compatibility) and iamlost, who is pointing out the reasons for Sids post.
BUT - it's hardly a novel concept, is it? I mean - multi browser compatibility so that everybody can see your website? Still, going back to basics never hurt anybody (especially after Florida!)
Oh, and iamlost - did you have all that written down before, or did you just write it for the post? In the words of Bart - most butt excellent man! :)
Sid
Me thinks it needs an axe and a cherry tree. ;)
I agree that nothing I wrote was new. sidyadav simply gave me an opportunity to:
1. agree with him!
1. reiterate something I think is obvious.
2. rebut the many posts in various WebmasterWorld forums saying concern with compatibility, etc. is a waste of time, silly, and pointless because the world belongs to IE and to Google.
Just for the record: The world belongs to me. :)
SEO and web browser optimization are analogous. Though perhaps for different reasons form those you listed. If I may pick on two statements form the above.
IE is the best browser? What are you basing that off of? It may be the most popular browser, but that doesn't make it the best by a long shot.
Google is still the best search engine...
IE(google) were not the first. There was already several established competitors in the field. Such as Netscape(AV) AOL(Yahoo). However IE(google) did innovate while others stood still. While NN4 was great when it came out and was dominant in the market. (AV had a significant share of the SE market and so did forgoten names like Excite). But IE brought out IE4 then IE5 then IE6. In the same period NN went form 4 to 4.7. It became stale and may switched away to IE. (Google released and was regularly updated with fresh spiderings. While AV seemed to stop spidering for several years and became old and stale and used only by a few hardcore fans.) Other browsers were in the pipe line like Moz and Opera but by the time they appeared on the market, IE was set as firm favorite. (AV and the other SE did eventually get their act together and improved and updated but the damage was done. the traffic lost and Google had become the worlds favorite.) However, since IE6 little has improved. There have been several advances in browser design. The competition in the form of Moz and Opera are better products with more features. It's only habit that keeps people using IE. (Google isn't quite as good as it used to be. Other search engines like ATW and Teroma have developed new search tools. While this side of the analogy is not so advance, google does have to watch out. The argument that google is the best SE is not as sound as it was a year ago.)
People use IE and google now out of habit. They don't think about alternatives. The tools that have work so why update. I have a hammer in my shed that was my Grandfathers. It's a bit bashed, and has some rust on it. Plus there are some shops locally that sell lovely new shiny hammers with the latest alloys and fancy grips. Their not expensive either. But I'll keep on using the same old hammer. Even when the head fell of I wedged it back on again.
Designing a web site to rank well on all the SE is difficult. Maybe impossible. What boost you on one SE will almost always work against you another SE. You have to use tricks and "spamming" methods to achiev the results you want. And the you run the risk of loosing your ranking completely.
Designer a web site to display properly on all browsers. So called Cross Browser Design. Is likewise difficult. The trick or effect you want to use may work well on one browser. But will break the page in another. You have to use hacks to get the design just right. Even then it's a compromise. Plus if you do it badly, you will ruin the design on all browsers.
One trick SEOer use is to cloke pages. That is to serve up different content depending on which spider or user is visiting. Each different page optimised to a specific SE spider.
Similarly, X-browser design can require the designer to use different stylesheats for different browsers. Serving each a unique set of style optimised to that browser.
Sid
Greetings,
Herenvardö
As an aproximation, ~95% of surfers can view html3.2 files, while only a ~70% can view html4.x files.
“Well displayed” will always be subjective criteria, but I’d be willing to bet that around 99% of web surfers can properly view XHTML 1.0. Version 4 Windows browsers render XHTML 1.0 with ease: [seaotter.berkeley.edu...]
Separation of presentational attributes from a page’s content and structure would seem to make more sense than letting version 2x/3x browser users influence your markup choices.
HTH,
CK
As an aproximation, ~95% of surfers can view html3.2 files, while only a ~70% can view html4.x files.
It's debatable as to what HTML standard Netscape 4 supports. It's either HTML 4.0 minus iframes or HTML 3.2 plus loads of addons.
Are you suggesting that you believe 30% of internet users are using Netscape 4* and below, or IE 3 and below?It's debatable as to what HTML standard Netscape 4 supports. It's either HTML 4.0 minus iframes or HTML 3.2 plus loads of addons.
IE3? I'd say IE6 ;)
Are you suggesting that you believe 30% of internet users are using Netscape 4* and below, or IE 3 and below?
This can seem prehistoric... and of course it is. But Spain is prehistorik! Keep in mind that my country was under a dictature from 1939 to 1975, and it passed more than 2 decades economically isolated by the UN. You have a higher quality of live, so you can use html 4.x without problem. But if you have to make a webpage targeted to Spanish people, remember that we are prehistorik! ;)
Even so, as I target my personal webpage to spanish users, I use html 3.2 and try to put only a few images.
But all of this goes out of topic. My intention was to defend a well used html stantdard instead of things like DHTML or flash presentations, for example.
Greetings,
Herenvardo the Prehistorik ;)
Maybe this don't happen in USA or UK, where the quality of life is relatively high, but I can assure that more than 60% PC users in Spain have something like this:
Processor: Pentium, Pentium MMX or similar, maybe Pentium II but no more than 266~300 Mhz
O.S.: Windows 95, sometimes with patches, but not usual. You can even easily find PCs with Win3.x
Browser: IE3, perhaps 4. I won't discuss it here, but I don't believe ANY browser from MS complies with ANY html standard.
Internet: Dial up modem, ussually 56k but it's easy to find 28k.
Storage: Floppy disk, hard disk ~2Gb, CD-ROM
In a long ago forgotten thread, I questioned what that "optimisation" consisted of, for most people.
The answer was: write a page of content, preview it in IE, and if it looks OK then upload the file to the web. Job done.
No optimisation at all.
In fact I am willing to bet that no-one really optimises their code for any browser. The closest people might get is simply validating it and fixing any errors found, with a quick preview in a couple of browsers before uploading.
In fact I am willing to bet that no-one really optimises their code for any browser. The closest people might get is simply validating it and fixing any errors found, with a quick preview in a couple of browsers before uploading.
luck,
robert
Ésos especificaciones no se parezca mucho más arriba que las ordinadoras eso mucha gente uso en Inglaterra.
That specifications do not seem very higher to the computers most people use in England?
Greetings,
Herenvardö, the prehistorik who optimizes for prehistoriks ;)
Really, we should all be writing on this forum in Esperanto.
P.S. Sid, public humiliation of other members is not tolerated by this forum.
lol, Jan, I hope that succeeds! ;)
Sid
