Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com> wrote:

> This is probably the first time I've actually posed a question. I'm
> curious about people's opinions on our site's search engine
> friendliness?

_Click here_ to view VPS plans!

I would probably use (_anchor text_):

_View our VPS plans_

or

_Learn more about our VPS plans_


Anyway, I actually checked out the site yesterday or so, and what annoyed
me was:

"We are creating our VPS plans and prices and plan to launch this service
shortly."

"Information coming soon." (2x)

Another SE related tip: use - instead of _ in URLs

And another one:

Don't put your company name first in the title. Put the most important
words first (but keep it readable), your company name at the very end.
Make sure that the important part of the title is not too long (40-50
characters).

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aburlyhost.com
clearly shows what's wrong with the current title scheme.

> problem or could pose a problem? Please be honest about your thoughts,
> because we very much want to be respectful of the guidelines, as well
> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.

The home page looks quite chaotic to me, especially all the logos at the
bottom.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

AISE/AWW/SEO/web development forum: http://seo-expert-wiki.com/

John Bokma wrote:

> Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>
>> This is probably the first time I've actually posed a question. I'm
>> curious about people's opinions on our site's search engine
>> friendliness?
>
> _Click here_ to view VPS plans!
>
> I would probably use (_anchor text_):
>
> _View our VPS plans_
>
> or
>
> _Learn more about our VPS plans_
>
>
> Anyway, I actually checked out the site yesterday or so, and what
> annoyed me was:
>
> "We are creating our VPS plans and prices and plan to launch this
> service shortly."
>
> "Information coming soon." (2x)
>
> Another SE related tip: use - instead of _ in URLs
>
> And another one:
>
> Don't put your company name first in the title. Put the most important
> words first (but keep it readable), your company name at the very end.
> Make sure that the important part of the title is not too long (40-50
> characters).
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aburlyhost.com
> clearly shows what's wrong with the current title scheme.
>
>> problem or could pose a problem? Please be honest about your
>> thoughts, because we very much want to be respectful of the
>> guidelines, as well
>> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.
>
> The home page looks quite chaotic to me, especially all the logos at
> the bottom.
>

A lot of these are things we are working on, which is why I mentioned
the other aspect in the topic here, which is the one thing we were
maybe going to keep (but I've removed that part). As for the logos at
the bottom, I'll probably modify them to be much smaller and more
"faded" so people can see the common products/brands that might
interest them, but not be as noticeable/obtrusive. Thanks for
feedback, as while I was mainly asking about the main page and portion
that has since been removed, it's appreciated to hear. Thanks.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!

On Sep 27, 9:59 pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
> Please be honest about your thoughts,
> because we very much want to be respectful of the guidelines, as well
> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.
> --
> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.

It is a good idea to have a valid robots.txt file.
Your robots.txt file is just
User-agent: *
you need to add at least one Disallow line below that.
If you do not need to block any URLs, have something like

User-agent: *
Disallow:

Also it is a good idea to have valid XHTML,
( 254 errors found by http://validator.w3.org/ )

Maybe count the keywords in the meta keywords tag,
and keep the ones really important to you.

You have a link to your home page without the trailing slash,
it is a good idea to have it to the URL with the trailing slash.

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Sep 27, 9:59 pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>> Please be honest about your thoughts,
>> because we very much want to be respectful of the guidelines, as well
>> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.
>> --
>> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
>
> It is a good idea to have a valid robots.txt file.
> Your robots.txt file is just
> User-agent: *
> you need to add at least one Disallow line below that.
> If you do not need to block any URLs, have something like
>
> User-agent: *
> Disallow:
>
> Also it is a good idea to have valid XHTML,
> ( 254 errors found by http://validator.w3.org/ )
>
> Maybe count the keywords in the meta keywords tag,
> and keep the ones really important to you.
>
> You have a link to your home page without the trailing slash,
> it is a good idea to have it to the URL with the trailing slash.

The robots.txt should be fine and valid. Having no disallow directive
or just an empty robots.txt file serves the same purpose as having just
Disallow: with no path specified. You shouldn't need a single disallow
line, unless you need to disallow a path, though it certainly is valid
to have it empty. The google robots.txt checker also sees it as good
as well.

Also, I've never really seen any problem with ending a tag with ">
instead of using /"> and that's what it complains about the most.
That's easily enough resolved with a quick sed replacement. I'll
probably replace them just for the sake of it reporting no errors, so I
can more easily see a real error reported.

Anyway, the key words and descriptions were more for phrases and words,
but I do realize there are duplicates and that's one of the things
we're resolving.

The question I had was really about the main page and some content that
has since been removed, but I do appreciate the feedback regardless.
Thanks a lot.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!

On Sep 28, 8:17-pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
> The robots.txt should be fine and valid. -Having no disallow directive
> or just an empty robots.txt file serves the same purpose as having just
> Disallow: with no path specified. -You shouldn't need a single disallow
> line, unless you need to disallow a path, though it certainly is valid
> to have it empty. -The google robots.txt checker also sees it as good
> as well.
> ....
> Also, I've never really seen any problem with ending a tag with ">
> instead of using /"> -and that's what it complains about the most.
> ....
> The question I had was really about the main page and some content that
> has since been removed, but I do appreciate the feedback regardless.
> Thanks a lot.
> --
> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.


You are probably right about the robots.txt, but
the robots.txt file is the most important component
of your website to search engines,
and I think it is better if it passes validation tests,
for example
http://tool.motoricerca.info/robots-checker.phtml

About valid XHTML, you do not know the exact
software that search engines use to extract content
from your pages, you do not know which
(X)HTML errors have a cumulative effect etc.,
it is better to help search engines and have valid code...

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Sep 28, 8:17Â-pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>> The robots.txt should be fine and valid. Â-Having no disallow
>> directive or just an empty robots.txt file serves the same purpose as
>> having just Disallow: with no path specified. Â-You shouldn't need a
>> single disallow line, unless you need to disallow a path, though it
>> certainly is valid to have it empty. Â-The google robots.txt checker
>> also sees it as good as well.
>> ....
>> Also, I've never really seen any problem with ending a tag with ">
>> instead of using /"> Â-and that's what it complains about the most.
>> ....
>> The question I had was really about the main page and some content
>> that has since been removed, but I do appreciate the feedback
>> regardless. Thanks a lot.
>> --
>> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
>
>
> You are probably right about the robots.txt, but
> the robots.txt file is the most important component
> of your website to search engines,
> and I think it is better if it passes validation tests,
> for example
> http://tool.motoricerca.info/robots-checker.phtml

I agree with you. While I think their checker is broken or doesn't
account for the omission of it, it really doesn't matter what I think
if there's a site out there that won't index it because it's missing.
While I've never known it to be an issue, it's better to use content
they any spider will see as okay, and I've therefore added it. Thanks
for the tip.

> About valid XHTML, you do not know the exact
> software that search engines use to extract content
> from your pages, you do not know which
> (X)HTML errors have a cumulative effect etc.,
> it is better to help search engines and have valid code...

Again, couldn't agree more. I just am not sure what to do about some
errors, such as it claiming you can't add a TD background (when it
reports it's an invalid element). The rest of the aspects are being
resolved, but I'll see what I can find out about that. I'm not a web
designer, so I'll have to look into it. Thanks again.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!

On Sep 28, 8:42-pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
> I just am not sure what to do about some
> errors, such as it claiming you can't add a TD background (when it
> reports it's an invalid element). -The rest of the aspects are being
> resolved, but I'll see what I can find out about that. -I'm not a web
> designer, so I'll have to look into it. -Thanks again.
> --
> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.

The background attribute is deprecated.
Better use style sheets or the style attribute instead.

Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com> wrote:

> mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 9:59 pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>>> Please be honest about your thoughts,
>>> because we very much want to be respectful of the guidelines, as well
>>> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.
>>> --
>>> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
>>
>> It is a good idea to have a valid robots.txt file.
>> Your robots.txt file is just
>> User-agent: *
>> you need to add at least one Disallow line below that.
>> If you do not need to block any URLs, have something like
>>
>> User-agent: *
>> Disallow:
>>
>> Also it is a good idea to have valid XHTML,
>> ( 254 errors found by http://validator.w3.org/ )
>>
>> Maybe count the keywords in the meta keywords tag,
>> and keep the ones really important to you.
>>
>> You have a link to your home page without the trailing slash,
>> it is a good idea to have it to the URL with the trailing slash.
>
> The robots.txt should be fine and valid.

I am not 100% sure, but tend to agree with myname.. Note that Google
validating it doesn't mean it's actually valid. (Google has to be less
strict)

> Having no disallow directive
> or just an empty robots.txt file serves the same purpose as having just
> Disallow: with no path specified. You shouldn't need a single disallow
> line, unless you need to disallow a path, though it certainly is valid
> to have it empty. The google robots.txt checker also sees it as good
> as well.
>
> Also, I've never really seen any problem with ending a tag with ">
> instead of using /"> and that's what it complains about the most.

You shouldn't use XHTML in that case (most people shouldn't, but that's a
different story). You're lucky that XHTML is not treated as it should.
From the sound of it, your document is not well formed, and normally an
XML parser should give up.

> That's easily enough resolved with a quick sed replacement. I'll
> probably replace them just for the sake of it reporting no errors, so I
> can more easily see a real error reported.

Good plan. If you're not sure about why you should use XHTML, then use
HTML 4.01 strict (but still validate your pages).

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

AISE/AWW/SEO/web development forum: http://seo-expert-wiki.com/

mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Sep 28, 8:42Â-pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>> I just am not sure what to do about some
>> errors, such as it claiming you can't add a TD background (when it
>> reports it's an invalid element). Â-The rest of the aspects are being
>> resolved, but I'll see what I can find out about that. Â-I'm not a web
>> designer, so I'll have to look into it. Â-Thanks again.
>> --

>
> The background attribute is deprecated.
> Better use style sheets or the style attribute instead.

Sorry, I was joking/being sarcastic about converting it all to CSS
styles. It'll take a little work, but yeah, I need to change it over,
or hire someone to do it.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!

John Bokma wrote:

> Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>
>> mynameisnobodyodyssea@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 9:59 pm, Tim Greer <t...@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>>>> Please be honest about your thoughts,
>>>> because we very much want to be respectful of the guidelines, as
>>>> well
>>>> as people's impressions. Thanks a lot for the input.
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
>>>
>>> It is a good idea to have a valid robots.txt file.
>>> Your robots.txt file is just
>>> User-agent: *
>>> you need to add at least one Disallow line below that.
>>> If you do not need to block any URLs, have something like
>>>
>>> User-agent: *
>>> Disallow:
>>>
>>> Also it is a good idea to have valid XHTML,
>>> ( 254 errors found by http://validator.w3.org/ )
>>>
>>> Maybe count the keywords in the meta keywords tag,
>>> and keep the ones really important to you.
>>>
>>> You have a link to your home page without the trailing slash,
>>> it is a good idea to have it to the URL with the trailing slash.
>>
>> The robots.txt should be fine and valid.
>
> I am not 100% sure, but tend to agree with myname.. Note that Google
> validating it doesn't mean it's actually valid. (Google has to be less
> strict)
>
>> Having no disallow directive
>> or just an empty robots.txt file serves the same purpose as having
>> just
>> Disallow: with no path specified. You shouldn't need a single
>> disallow line, unless you need to disallow a path, though it
>> certainly is valid
>> to have it empty. The google robots.txt checker also sees it as good
>> as well.
>>
>> Also, I've never really seen any problem with ending a tag with ">
>> instead of using /"> and that's what it complains about the most.
>
> You shouldn't use XHTML in that case (most people shouldn't, but
> that's a different story). You're lucky that XHTML is not treated as
> it should. From the sound of it, your document is not well formed, and
> normally an XML parser should give up.

It's not formatted for XML, no. It's fine otherwise (but not for
XHMTL). I had to change some things due to different browser
incompatibility issues. I just need to either spend more time getting
it to work in all browsers, or hire someone to do that.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!