Forum Moderators: open
I'll be registering a new domain and updating the site's logo to reflect the keywords I'm targetting, but I'm a little concerned about some of the browser compatibility issues I've seen raised.
Although the site is Cold Fusion driven, I use pretty basic html in it, but when it comes to positioning tables and text I use CSS.
When viewed in a browser that is none CSS compliant, the site is still navigable, albeit that the tables reflow into the left margin.
Is this a potential cause for rejection?
I had a site rejected because one CSS, on one page in the whole site did not agree with Netscape 4.7.
When I checked this it did push a small piece of text out of position, despite the fact that it did not impede the usage of the site. IMHO this was a subjective decision based on the opinion of the Yahoo editor of the effect on the design of the page. Ironically, when I checked this on a different PC running Netscape v.4.7 it displayed correctly!
I submitted this site on behalf of a client who was flabbergasted by this, as they had paid £299 for the priviledge, and despite my 2 appeals to Yahoo they refused to accept the site.
It was both unrealistic and undesirable and not cost effective for the client to fundamentally change the site merely for the benefit of a 'favourable' Yahoo review - their server logs show that 95% of visitors use either IE 5 or greater or Netscape 4.7 or greater.
The site was also submitted to other directories 'Express/Paid for' reviews and was accepted by every one, with one editor actually taking the trouble to compliment the site design and the use of DHTML.
Unfortunately, this spoiled my relationship with the client. I did make them aware of Yahoo's submission policies, but as far as they, their web designers, and myself were concerned the site conformed and worked in both Netscape and IE browsers.
I have recently refused to submit 2 sites for a Yahoo Review - one which offers video streaming and music downloads and one which uses (for corporate identity and branding reasons) a Java rollover navigation exclusively throughout the site.
I really feel that is high time Yahoo started using some common sense for their Submission/Acceptance criteria:
Particularly noting who the site is targeted towards and the business objectives of the submitting company.
A company 'streaming video or music' will not be targeting an audience who are using non-Java or frame enabled browsers, or those using a 14.4 modem.
A company who have invested significant time and resources in corporate identity and branding will want to reflect this in the design and navigation of their site - even if this means 'Java only' navigation to maintain their corporate id.
IMHO it would not significantly downgrade the quality of their directory or the relevance of their search results to note this, and include sites such as these.
Acee, if you do decide to submit I would be really interested in the outcome.
Good luck!
Css is not bad to use on a site. If the site doesn't render the same in all the major browsers then you might have trouble.
It should also be noted that xml requires a style sheet to render. Style sheets are here to stay.
Markd has yet another horror story from the Y?(why?) chronicles. Do a site search and you'll see time after time where Y? has done this sort of thing. It doesn't only involve css, however. If your site doesn't live up to the Draconian HTML 3.2, text and blue hyperlinks only, Jakob Neilsen for president, I still surf with Lynx mentality of the Y? crew then you just might not be up to par and 300 bucks short of a listing.
I should also say that I'm a css nut and everything I do is css based and I've never had any trouble with Y? (yet).
I can't really afford to submit twice in terms of time or money.
The majority of the site is semi-static and will only require the modification of 3 templates to re-generate the site.
Unless someone can offer more positive info regarding CSS I think I'll have to introduce tables.
I agree that a more progressive outlook is required by Yahoo. Their job is to provide a structured directory of web sites, not define a benchmark for what technologies a web site should or should not use.
It's quite clear from the comments made on WMW that many sites are modified as soon as they've been accepted by Yahoo. Web sites must develop and evolve to meet the demands of visitors, new standards or technologies.
Having read their submission terms, the guidelines for browser compatibility are very vague to the point of being unsatisfactory. How can a web designer work with such a nebulous guideline?
Paying customers deserve better information than this. My own site is a directory and I wouldn't treat customers with such arrogance.
It would be interesting to see a rejection taken up with Trading Standards to see if they could be compelled to provide more information so we could at least have a minimum standard to work to.
If a more detailed description of minimum requirements were provided, it would of course, create a commercial problem for Yahoo, because it would discourage less web savvy punters from submitting at all, or increase the cost to the punter because they'd need a web designer/consultant to give their web site the once over prior to submission.
Not to mention the that the rejections would drop!
We all know the potential traffic that a good Yahoo listing can provide, but I would sooner concentrate my efforts on Google and Fast these days - 2 search resources which seem to want to work with the SEO who plays fair, the end user client who wants their site to be found by people searching for information their site can provide and finally (and most importantly) to provide a better experience for the searcher.
Perhaps you're budget could be better spent elswhere Acee?
(edited by: markd at 9:41 pm (gmt) on Nov. 6, 2001)
(edited by: markd at 9:42 pm (gmt) on Nov. 6, 2001)
We all know the potential traffic that a good Yahoo listing can provide, but I would sooner concentrate my efforts on Google and Fast these days - 2 search resources which seem to want to work with the SEO who plays fair, the end user client who wants their site to be found by people searching for information their site can provide and finally (and most importantly) to provide a better experience for the searcher.
Perhaps your budget could be better spent elswhere Acee?
At this point in time, I don't think I could spend the cash more effectively elsewhere. I've tried Adwords, Goto/Overture and Espotting, but they've failed to provide paying customers, which are proving rather difficult to attract.
I'm currently shifting the emphasis of my directory slightly, and the corresponding category of Yahoo has only a modest number listed, none of which have optimised their titles or domain names.
My only concern is the CSS issue - in particular absolute positioning.
Toolman, your experience of CSS sounds a little more positive. Have you had any sites accepted that use absolute positoning?
