Forum Moderators: open
As it stands right now, people are using regular search engines to shop and most of the top results are shoddy looking (or not as good as they could look), even with CSS. Why not let the SEO's duke it out while showing nice, shiny, professionally designed sites? It wouldn't be unfair, it would be good business and it would probably boost Internet consumer confidence exponentially.
Now, I'm no cloaker. I have no idea how it's done but if it were OK with Google, I'd learn it in a heartbeat. A really nice looking site would do wonders for conversions.
I doubt it - people looking for those go to web design competition sites and the like.
Google, in comparison, helps users looking for information to get clues beyond the "cover".
There re much better ways on the Web to find "good-looking sites" for the tiny majority who want to find them. If you want hits for being pretty, then look at alternative promotion vehicles.
Lets just say i really enjoy the occassional compliations of "best TV commercials" they package for a TV program from say ad award competitions. The interesting thing, however, is no matter how clever, beautiful, funny, or trendy those ads I rarely see them on TV in the normal way.
We tend to think that google is important because we frequent a place where most people of likeminds are gathered in one place. Lets just say that Google rankings are a non-existant or very small part of almost all serious web promotion campaigns I see every week which use ad or research agencies. These advertisers make up a far greater proportion of web "real estate" and attract a far great proportion of web users than you think.
It may well be that those looking for promotion through google are frustrated and feel that "Google is the web" - but go beyond our little club here and its not as significant or influential as many assume.
One man's meat may be another man's poison, but from my observation and experience, Plain_Jane's sites load more quickly than most, thereby maximizing user retention, have user-friendly and easily transversed navigation, and also seem to garner favor with Google.
What exactly is Plain_Jane missing out on that makes the sites that Google loves appear ugly to some people?
As it stands right now, people are using regular search engines to shop and most of the top results are shoddy looking (or not as good as they could look), even with CSS.
I happen to do seo for an adult cat and you would be surprised to know how good looking the top sites are (without cloaking).
As far as top results being Shoddy it says a bit about the designers. I feel an equilibrium can always be reached between designing and seo. Another important factor is it reins in the designers. Otherwise we will have high bandwidth sucking websites which not all people could access.
So, why not allow cloaking for certain commerical categories?
Who decides the validity of content you provide to the search engines. There is a simple rule of thumb for cloakers. You should know what you are doing. If not better stay away from cloaking.
Many of them have no clue what "minimalist web design" means and also have no chance of ever complying with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design.
And, the reason why Google should give a rat's ass about the conversions of really nice looking sites is? And, why should Google encourage visually aesthetic site designs?
But ....
I've found that most CEOs or company owners want to have great-looking, gee-whiz-ain't-she-a-beauty web sites to feed their own ego. "We're better than the competition, and we can prove it by having a better-looking web site." They approach a design project with their eyes focused on serving their own needs for a supermodel web site, as if it's some kind of badge of honor.
The better approach, of course, is to approach a design project with their eyes focused on serving their customers needs, and their customers by and large don't care if the company web site is the hottest girl/guy on the online block. They want ease of use, functionality, and clear information. How does it look without all that makeup on?
I'd say Google is doing its job correctly so long as it continues to reward web sites that focus on serving web users the best. And that's always the answer when people ask how to build a Google-friendly site: focus on serving your customers.
Becuase Google wants to rank sites themselves based on content of the site, rather than what the webmaster wants the site to rank on! The former is imperfect, but the latter is suicide.
I happen to do seo for an adult cat and you would be surprised to know how good looking the top sites are (without cloaking).
I agree with you mil2k, also gives me a chance to surf adult sites as part of my SEO research :-P
How to do SEO without changing design (SEO for image heavy, database driven flash site):
1) Get a keyword rich domain.
2) Lots of PR value.
3) Use of keywords in title, no script tag, page file names, alt text, comment tags, text link, site-map etc.
4) Lots of backward links with keywords in anchor text.
5) Submission in right directory of Yahoo, ODP, ZEAL and hundreds of portals with keywords in listing title and site description.
6) Use of text footer, text navigation with keywords in hyperlink text if possible.
7) Reciprocal links and after reading to rfgdxm1 posts loads of guestbook links ;-)
Anything I am missing here?
Normally - I don't do generalisations. But as "most of the top results are shoddy looking" I thought I'd better generalise a little too.
Most "nice, shiny, professionally designed sites" have absolutely no clue about accessibility. Most conform to no applicable Legislation.
Many "professional" webdesigners - and we deal with them every day - have not heard of - let alone read, the laws on Website accessibility here in Australia. We have a thing called the 'Disability Dicrimination Act' - which is 10 years old. SOCOG - the organisation which ran the Sydney Olympics - was successfully sued under this legislation in 1998 for having an inaccessible website.
This legislation protects the rights of those with disabilities in both the real world, and in the on line world.
Still - the good side is that many professional "web designers" get to do what they do in ignorant bliss on the internet. Otherwise they might apply the same 'cool deigns' and inappropriate uses of technology - with no regard to engineering requirements or the law - to the 'design' of real things - like buildings and cars and telecommunications systems..... Where would we be then?
Of course - there are many SEO savvy, legislation compliant, web designers too. But you wouldn't know about them - their sites are in the top results.
Besides. Everyone knows that 'beauty is in the eye of the beerholder'.
:)
also gives me a chance to surf adult sites as part of my SEO research
lol.
