All Text Pages . Better for Google or Not

Can developing an all text site be as highly listed as an SEO'd site?

[colin_h]

In the old days we used to write websites in plain text and used to get great results on Google. I recently tried this again, in an attempt to fathom the finer points of Jagger and got absolutely no return from the pages I put online. The pages were optimised, but no massive repeated sections or great big clumps of title tag repeats etc ... just about 300 words of descriptive text.

I'm wondering if any one else has experienced a Google penalty for presenting plain text pages online.

Thanks

Col :-)

[MHes]

>...if any one else has experienced a Google penalty for presenting plain text pages online.

Penalty? I don't think so. I doubt Google has a problem with plain text pages, they just need to see all the other factors as well before they rank you well.

The assumption that Google deals in 'penalties' I think leads many webmasters to get paranoid and misses what is really happenning. The temptation is to assume what you have done is wrong, when in fact, the problem is what you haven't done.

[Phil_Payne]

Better, I would have thought. I have a business site with a hobby site hung off it - a few hundred pages with only about three images included in the text pages (there are a few .PNGs for some scanned-in wiring diagrams) and not a single script on the site.

I do EXTREMELY well for the keywords of interest - usually #1 and never off the front page.