Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 100.26.182.28

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Whats the best?

     

tronzolo

7:24 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


What is the best program to use for developing your web sites, particularly big ones, and yet produces the BEST results for SEO campaigns? i.e. FrontPage? DreamWeaver? GoLive?

I use FrontPage 2002 right now and I use its include feature to update my site. I am no where to be found on Google. I read somewhere that Google doesn't like FrontPage, is this true?

6:57 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 21, 2003
posts:68
votes: 0


tronzolo, I get lots of traffic from Google using FP.

Fp2003 is worth upgrading to.

The best "what you see?" From what I've heard I would imagine Dreamweaver is best. But I wouldn't want to learn a new program.

I've never had a problem with FP that wasn't self inflicted in some way or another.

4:50 pm on Aug 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 2, 2003
posts:724
votes: 0


tronzolo, welcome to Webmaster World!

If you have big sites, I would spend the time to learn how to hand code your pages rather than using FrontPage. We use HomeSite which, with snippets, automates the process considerably. All changes in HomeSite are 'live' to the servers using WebDrive (with hourly, automatic dual source backups using HandyBackup). This combination allows us to immediately update dozens of sites across six different servers.

As far as FrontPage and SEO is concerned, I don't think Google has a problem with it at all. I'm more concerned about all the unnecessary, bloated code FP produces.

Steve

8:27 pm on Aug 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 10, 2002
posts:937
votes: 4


I would consider which programme gives BEST results for 'visitors', before thinking about SEO and search engines....... ;)
7:19 am on Aug 31, 2004 (gmt 0)

Administrator from JP 

WebmasterWorld Administrator bill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 12, 2000
posts:15159
votes: 170


I'm more concerned about all the unnecessary, bloated code FP produces.

FP doesn't produce bloated code at all as long as you don't use Shared Borders or some of the FP WebBots which rely on the FP server extensions.

It is very simple to use FP to make validating HTML/XHTML pages without any bloat at all.

4:11 am on Sept 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 21, 2004
posts:13
votes: 0


I donít think it is true that Google does not like FP. I have a very large web site which was made and is stil updated with FP and my site is ranked very high in Google.

DogLover

4:14 am on Sept 4, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 17, 2004
posts:209
votes: 0


I prefer dreamweaver. You can set the site up as a template very easilt and if you update links on the left it automatically updates all the dependent files.

Although I have gotten a lot done with notepad too :).

4:09 pm on Sept 30, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 25, 2003
posts:227
votes: 0


FP 2003 is definately worth the upgrade.
I noticed once: I brought a site from front page and veiwed it in dreamweaver. Dreamweaver pointed out all the unclosed tags or bad html(4-5 total errors). Dreamweaver's remedy was to delete if it looked ok. Frontpage has a clean up wizzard that once I ran it, I re-opened it in Dreamweaver did not highlite any bad code.

Also Frontpage in my opinion has a nicer screen veiw. I feel less cluttered, but it is still easy to navigate.

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members