On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:27:37 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>
>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>
>LOL! missed that one :-)

No, I was serious! I don't suppose the local poultry routinely
out in the kitchens down south but I'm sure I've heard of things being
chicken-fried before, if I thought it was just Stacey I would have
ignored it. Possibly... :-)

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:02 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
>news:km42idat2jxf.1gvf0yjbbljuq$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>>
>>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>>
>> LOL! missed that one :-)
>
>Me too.:-) It is made with hamburger and breaded like we do our fried
>chicken, then fried. BTW it is chicken fried steak, not chicken-fried
>steak.:-)
>
>Stacey

Ah - secret herbs and spices kind of thing then? Southern fried, we'd
probably call that.

BB

--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:1sp73hm45daub$.1jgyhh7em14v6$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
> Jezsta Web Productions wrote:
>
>> Good, I will have to remember that next year when I go to NL.
>
> You are going to contradict yourself in a few seconds of reading
> on....

Yeah, but it isn't the same.:-)

>>> BTW - 700km isn't near in my book!
>>
>> By far the nearest I will ever get. I will be moving to KY in 2008.
>
> When you're going to NL next year, you are going to be nearer than
> 700km :P

LOL! But I won't be living there just visiting. I need my cookware and
stuff.

>>> http://www.magicgardenseeds.de/ABE01.html
>>
>> Shoot, it is cheaper to have my brother or Mom send them to me. Packets
>> of
>> seeds are like half the price.
>
> Not surprised, as they are of course imported.

Yes.

<snip>

>>> Pickled okra? Hmm... not so sure I would like that :\
>>
>> It is good, trust me. Have you ever had pickled baby corn?
>
> Yes, not bad, but I prefer regular baby corn. And okra isn't corn...

No, it isn't but it is good also. Pickled okra is almost as good as cucumber
pickles.

Stacey

"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1b46f2dr6095i5dub7ggnc1kfrf2rpnsa8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:02 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
>>news:km42idat2jxf.1gvf0yjbbljuq$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>>>
>>>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>>>
>>> LOL! missed that one :-)
>>
>>Me too.:-) It is made with hamburger and breaded like we do our fried
>>chicken, then fried. BTW it is chicken fried steak, not chicken-fried
>>steak.:-)
>>
>>Stacey
>
> Ah - secret herbs and spices kind of thing then? Southern fried, we'd
> probably call that.

You can't because it is an American dish. The stuff I seen over in the UK
that was American you used the American name for it. Chicken Fried Steak
isn't just taking hamburger and slapping stuff on it. You have to mix up the
meat with eggs, onions, and spices, pat it out then bread it, and finally
frying it. You know your Sheppard's Pie is a type of meal that even in the
US we still call it that.

Stacey

"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ad06f2hh0ij6peht5d57akrh4l4unge8j8@4ax.com...

>
> What is chicken-fried steak?

Now I see it. I seen Els before yours. Your news server must be running
slow.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:22:59 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ad06f2hh0ij6peht5d57akrh4l4unge8j8@4ax.com.. .
>
>>
>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>
>Now I see it. I seen Els before yours. Your news server must be running
>slow.
>

I think this happens intermittently. I post things and then they turn
up out of sequence.

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:02 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
>news:km42idat2jxf.1gvf0yjbbljuq$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>>
>>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>>
>> LOL! missed that one :-)
>
>Me too.:-) It is made with hamburger and breaded like we do our fried
>chicken, then fried. BTW it is chicken fried steak, not chicken-fried
>steak.:-)

oh man, I love chicken fried steak ... with mashed taters and corn or
perhaps a baked potato instead of the mashed ... either way, dang good
stuff. Morning time instead of corn, would get scrambled eggs with it.

Dang it Stacey - you went and made me hanker the dang thing and folks
in this area have no clue what it is or a pork fritter either. *sigh*
When you describe it they just look at you like you are the wierd one
and not them (the folks who think ham BBQ is shaved ham thrown in with
a can of tomato soup or think coleslaw should have a heaping ing
of diced dill pickles mixed into it).

Carol

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:00:05 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Carol W" <from_you@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:7pl4f25d2j8dm8c44af2686mgcpfpadd97@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:14:27 GMT, David
>> <seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:39:49 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:14:44 GMT, David
>>>><seodave@search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:52:15 GMT, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now again, tell me how that is Google's attitude to do as I say not as
>>>>>>>I do
>>>>>>>type thing. Plus, give me an example of Google having this attitude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stacey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Google doesn't validate, now or ever so far as I know, but it has
>>>>>>asked for sites to validate in its guidelines, ages ago that was.
>>>>>>Didn't last for very long..
>>>>>
>>>>>So when and were was this so we can check it out as I don't recall
>>>>>reading Google mentioning validation?
>>>>
>>>>So?
>>>>
>>>>BB
>>>
>>>So I think you are lying to win an argument.
>>
>> <coming back from the dead - almost literally even>
>
>Glad to see you alive Carol.:-)

Alive, but still need to take it easy ... which is not as much fun as
it sounds like. Odd how that works out, huh?

[snip]
>MSN's do now. I don't know if they weren't in the past.

MSN's inner pages used to be a myriad of HTML thrown in ... some of it
may been courtesy of the earlier versions of the editor they used
though ... who knows. It used to be joked around about how MS was part
of the W3C and yet their pages didn't validate because they didn't
follow the W3C recommendations ... go figure.

> I just mentioned
>this. Google did state and does still- correct HTML. Widely really it can be
>determined that some would consider it to mean 100% valid.

well - to nitpick hairs, correct HTML could likely be valid ... but
that's neither here nor there.

>But it wasn't a
>requirement to be indexed. Same as making and submitting a sitemap which
>Google has now put into there guidelines. It is not a requirement to be
>indexed.

True. I had site maps on my sites before they were the current Web fad
.... I don't know if it is cooler to be behind ahead of or behind the
times, though. )

>This little bit of the thread got started by Bill stating Google's attitude
>is a do as I say not do as I do type attitude. I don't see that as Google
>indexes sites that are not 100% valid.

True. The SE spiders will typically usually try to index anything
along the pike and (SI) Highway ... and even the alleyways.

><snip>

Carol

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:56:46 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns982B7CA64A8F4castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> >> "Royceee" <royce.bathrooms@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> Although my site is doing pretty well on Google, Im searching for ways
> >>> to make it do better, I have got some links coming into my site which
> >>> has made my PR good but im looking for ways to further improve my
> >>> search engine results.
> >>> I read that untidy code and more code than content can slow things
> >>> down. Is this true?
> >>
> >> Yes and no. Untidy code as in code that doesn't validate *might* result
> >> in a SE misunderstanding your code. Also, untidy code could mean that
> >> you're using HTML in the wrong way, for example:
> >>
> >> <h1>Perl support by an expert Perl programmer</h1>
> >>
> >> is good
> >>
> >> <tr><td><font size="6" face="...."><b><i>Support</i></b></font></td>
> >> </tr>
> >
> >Also clean code is easier to follow when making additions to the site that
> >you need to add html and not do it with an editor. You can easily mess up
> >when it isn't straight with less fluff. I know I have done it. But if it
> >isn't a very important page and you can make changes without a disaster then
> >fine.
> >
> >I am working on this site and had to add a calendar
> >http://www.houstonpianist.com/calend...nt-booking.htm
> >. Over 1300 lines of code with a lot of fluff. I can move over a lot with
> >CSS and even have a CSS in place and have started cleaning out a bit. But
> >you know it isn't worth it as the calendar isn't going to rank anyway. But
> >it is valid error free code, messy but it is fine. To me it was easier to
> >fix the errors than make it totally neat and tidy.:-) All the main pages are
> >neat and tidy.
> >
> >Stacey
>
> I'm toying with the concept of Care Rank. Google wanting to see sites
> that someone takes seriously enough to care about, so they make sure
> it validates ok. I don't think Trust Rank and Page Rank quite cover
> what's out there. Care Rank is a factor also.
>
> BB
> --
>
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
> http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

Those who make sure their site is accessible for the blind should also
get an advantage. I've been reading alot on W3 lately. There's so
much stuff that can be done and so much that is recommended, it doesn't
make things easier and if anything it adds to the code, not the
content. I can't say I've seen any search engine rewarding for putting
in the extra effort to make sure a site is accessable or uses valid
code.

Steven

"Timmermans" <steventimmermans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Those who make sure their site is accessible for the blind should also
> get an advantage. I've been reading alot on W3 lately. There's so
> much stuff that can be done and so much that is recommended, it
> doesn't make things easier and if anything it adds to the code, not
> the content. I can't say I've seen any search engine rewarding for
> putting in the extra effort to make sure a site is accessable or uses
> valid code.

The major problem SEs like Google have is that they have to stick to the
majority of crap out there. They just can't afford to change the rules of
the game too drastic.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On 28 Aug 2006 20:16:03 -0700, "Timmermans"
<steventimmermans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:56:46 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>> >news:Xns982B7CA64A8F4castleamber@130.133.1.4...
>> >> "Royceee" <royce.bathrooms@btconnect.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello
>> >>>
>> >>> Although my site is doing pretty well on Google, Im searching for ways
>> >>> to make it do better, I have got some links coming into my site which
>> >>> has made my PR good but im looking for ways to further improve my
>> >>> search engine results.
>> >>> I read that untidy code and more code than content can slow things
>> >>> down. Is this true?
>> >>
>> >> Yes and no. Untidy code as in code that doesn't validate *might* result
>> >> in a SE misunderstanding your code. Also, untidy code could mean that
>> >> you're using HTML in the wrong way, for example:
>> >>
>> >> <h1>Perl support by an expert Perl programmer</h1>
>> >>
>> >> is good
>> >>
>> >> <tr><td><font size="6" face="...."><b><i>Support</i></b></font></td>
>> >> </tr>
>> >
>> >Also clean code is easier to follow when making additions to the site that
>> >you need to add html and not do it with an editor. You can easily mess up
>> >when it isn't straight with less fluff. I know I have done it. But if it
>> >isn't a very important page and you can make changes without a disaster then
>> >fine.
>> >
>> >I am working on this site and had to add a calendar
>> >http://www.houstonpianist.com/calend...nt-booking.htm
>> >. Over 1300 lines of code with a lot of fluff. I can move over a lot with
>> >CSS and even have a CSS in place and have started cleaning out a bit. But
>> >you know it isn't worth it as the calendar isn't going to rank anyway. But
>> >it is valid error free code, messy but it is fine. To me it was easier to
>> >fix the errors than make it totally neat and tidy.:-) All the main pages are
>> >neat and tidy.
>> >
>> >Stacey
>>
>> I'm toying with the concept of Care Rank. Google wanting to see sites
>> that someone takes seriously enough to care about, so they make sure
>> it validates ok. I don't think Trust Rank and Page Rank quite cover
>> what's out there. Care Rank is a factor also.
>>
>> BB
>> --
>>
>> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
>> http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
>> http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm
>
>Those who make sure their site is accessible for the blind should also
>get an advantage.

I'm inclined to agree. Els knows the most about this. I know Cat's the
most overtly concerned, but that's because of her personal situation,
I think.

> I've been reading alot on W3 lately. There's so
>much stuff that can be done and so much that is recommended, it doesn't
>make things easier and if anything it adds to the code, not the
>content. I can't say I've seen any search engine rewarding for putting
>in the extra effort to make sure a site is accessable or uses valid
>code.

But Google have implemented the accessibility search engine, perhaps
an indication of things to come. Perhaps this is already a factor in
the algo, or did they just do it to make nice with blind folk? Which
is possible, Google are the "do no evil" crowd and it's in their
long-term interests to improve the environment that feeds them.

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

On 29 Aug 2006 06:20:40 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>"Timmermans" <steventimmermans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Those who make sure their site is accessible for the blind should also
>> get an advantage. I've been reading alot on W3 lately. There's so
>> much stuff that can be done and so much that is recommended, it
>> doesn't make things easier and if anything it adds to the code, not
>> the content. I can't say I've seen any search engine rewarding for
>> putting in the extra effort to make sure a site is accessable or uses
>> valid code.
>
>The major problem SEs like Google have is that they have to stick to the
>majority of crap out there. They just can't afford to change the rules of
>the game too drastic.

If they did, as I've said time and again with respect to validation
and spamming in general, they'd have no index.

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

"Carol W" <from_you@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:kao6f2lnnjurb6bsdqfjrrr7u9gefs8637@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:02 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
>>news:km42idat2jxf.1gvf0yjbbljuq$.dlg@40tude.net. ..
>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>>>
>>>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>>>
>>> LOL! missed that one :-)
>>
>>Me too.:-) It is made with hamburger and breaded like we do our fried
>>chicken, then fried. BTW it is chicken fried steak, not chicken-fried
>>steak.:-)
>
> oh man, I love chicken fried steak ... with mashed taters and corn or
> perhaps a baked potato instead of the mashed ... either way, dang good
> stuff. Morning time instead of corn, would get scrambled eggs with it.

:-) no eggs, don't like them.:-) But now I got myself hankering some chicken
fried steak! I need to go gather up some green tomatoes and get some fixed
up! I even got some yellow squash to fry up also. Yum yum, a fried fest
tonight!

Cracker Barrel as a good country fried steak that they call chicken fried.
Thing is to me if you use real tenderized steak it is country fried. Misses
the whole purpose of why chicken fried steak was made. Poor people making
hamburger meat different and spread through the family further. A lb of meat
could feed a family of 5, depending on how much bread crumbs or oatmeal you
would use. Same with Salisbury Steak.:-)

Did you ever eat tuna croquets? Yep, tuna mixed with eggs and flour and
fried in little patties(like Salmon, but cans of tuna were cheaper). Funny
thing is those poor meals one can grow to love. I still make it.:-) Except
now I try it with cans of chicken or ham also.

> Dang it Stacey - you went and made me hanker the dang thing and folks
> in this area have no clue what it is or a pork fritter either. *sigh*

Yep, but they eat a lot of hotdogs up north with those hotdog stands huh?:-)

> When you describe it they just look at you like you are the wierd one
> and not them (the folks who think ham BBQ is shaved ham thrown in with
> a can of tomato soup or think coleslaw should have a heaping ing
> of diced dill pickles mixed into it).

Or tons of mayo, without also putting in some vinegar with a teaspoon of
sugar. I shred my cabbage and put the vinegar and sugar with a little bit of
dill weed and let it set for about 30 minutes to an hour. I use Miracle Whip
instead of mayo but not to much, just enough to hold the carrots and a small
amount of diced pickles. Great stuff! I like to sometimes mix the cabbage
with a little bit of red cabbage. Now how come they call red cabbage red?
Looks purple to me.:-)

Stacey

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:44:13 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"Carol W" <from_you@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:kao6f2lnnjurb6bsdqfjrrr7u9gefs8637@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:02 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
>> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:km42idat2jxf.1gvf0yjbbljuq$.dlg@40tude.net ...
>>>> Big Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Add some chicken fried steak
>>>>>
>>>>> What is chicken-fried steak?
>>>>
>>>> LOL! missed that one :-)
>>>
>>>Me too.:-) It is made with hamburger and breaded like we do our fried
>>>chicken, then fried. BTW it is chicken fried steak, not chicken-fried
>>>steak.:-)
>>
>> oh man, I love chicken fried steak ... with mashed taters and corn or
>> perhaps a baked potato instead of the mashed ... either way, dang good
>> stuff. Morning time instead of corn, would get scrambled eggs with it.
>
>:-) no eggs, don't like them.:-) But now I got myself hankering some chicken
>fried steak! I need to go gather up some green tomatoes and get some fixed
>up! I even got some yellow squash to fry up also. Yum yum, a fried fest
>tonight!

My cholesterol is vibrating in sympathy.

>Cracker Barrel as a good country fried steak that they call chicken fried.
>Thing is to me if you use real tenderized steak it is country fried. Misses
>the whole purpose of why chicken fried steak was made. Poor people making
>hamburger meat different and spread through the family further. A lb of meat
>could feed a family of 5, depending on how much bread crumbs or oatmeal you
>would use. Same with Salisbury Steak.:-)
>
>Did you ever eat tuna croquets? Yep, tuna mixed with eggs and flour and
>fried in little patties(like Salmon, but cans of tuna were cheaper). Funny
>thing is those poor meals one can grow to love. I still make it.:-) Except
>now I try it with cans of chicken or ham also.

Perhaps you could throw a few Mars Bars into the mix? Kill off the
entire family in one fell swoop. Wanted, Stacey Pettibone, one count
of felonious cookery.

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/comfo...les/index.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...-new-york.html
http://www.kruse.co.uk/search-engine...n-firms-uk.htm

"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94k8f2hjhehg738pa1lmvh4anjlqrc36tf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:44:13 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"Carol W" <from_you@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:kao6f2lnnjurb6bsdqfjrrr7u9gefs8637@4ax.com. ..
<snip>

>>> oh man, I love chicken fried steak ... with mashed taters and corn or
>>> perhaps a baked potato instead of the mashed ... either way, dang good
>>> stuff. Morning time instead of corn, would get scrambled eggs with it.
>>
>>:-) no eggs, don't like them.:-) But now I got myself hankering some
>>chicken
>>fried steak! I need to go gather up some green tomatoes and get some fixed
>>up! I even got some yellow squash to fry up also. Yum yum, a fried fest
>>tonight!
>
> My cholesterol is vibrating in sympathy.

Good thing I make it with lean ground beef and use Safflower oil huh?:-) I
have learned to still make it good but use different oils.
>
>>Cracker Barrel as a good country fried steak that they call chicken fried.
>>Thing is to me if you use real tenderized steak it is country fried.
>>Misses
>>the whole purpose of why chicken fried steak was made. Poor people making
>>hamburger meat different and spread through the family further. A lb of
>>meat
>>could feed a family of 5, depending on how much bread crumbs or oatmeal
>>you
>>would use. Same with Salisbury Steak.:-)
>>
>>Did you ever eat tuna croquets? Yep, tuna mixed with eggs and flour and
>>fried in little patties(like Salmon, but cans of tuna were cheaper). Funny
>>thing is those poor meals one can grow to love. I still make it.:-) Except
>>now I try it with cans of chicken or ham also.
>
> Perhaps you could throw a few Mars Bars into the mix? Kill off the
> entire family in one fell swoop. Wanted, Stacey Pettibone, one count
> of felonious cookery.

Not really the way I make the food. None of my family that I have fed has a
weight problem.:-) We are all pretty healthy.

Now, except when I cook Mexican, it is filled with cholesterol as you can't
make it good without lard! But only make real good Mexican food about once a
year.

Stacey

Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On 29 Aug 2006 06:20:40 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>"Timmermans" <steventimmermans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Those who make sure their site is accessible for the blind should
>>> also get an advantage. I've been reading alot on W3 lately.
>>> There's so much stuff that can be done and so much that is
>>> recommended, it doesn't make things easier and if anything it adds
>>> to the code, not the content. I can't say I've seen any search
>>> engine rewarding for putting in the extra effort to make sure a site
>>> is accessable or uses valid code.
>>
>>The major problem SEs like Google have is that they have to stick to
>>the majority of crap out there. They just can't afford to change the
>>rules of the game too drastic.
>
> If they did, as I've said time and again with respect to validation
> and spamming in general, they'd have no index.

And probably a lot of law suits :-)

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> But Google have implemented the accessibility search engine, perhaps
> an indication of things to come. Perhaps this is already a factor in
> the algo, or did they just do it to make nice with blind folk? Which
> is possible, Google are the "do no evil" crowd and it's in their
> long-term interests to improve the environment that feeds them.

How small is the % of people that have a visual issue, and how important
are those people to business? Mind, those questions are neutral, I am not
trying to imply that we should forget about people who have a hard time
accessing the information on the Internet, but how many businesses are
actually interested in this? I am afraid far to little.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns982E6EF4C6E96castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> If they did, as I've said time and again with respect to validation
>> and spamming in general, they'd have no index.

I thought you were stating it was a new Google and the thing about Care
Rank.:-)

> And probably a lot of law suits :-)

LOL! too many people expect.:-)

Stacey

--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:15:54 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
<Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:

>"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns982E6EF4C6E96castleamber@130.133.1.4...
>> Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>>> If they did, as I've said time and again with respect to validation
>>> and spamming in general, they'd have no index.
>
>I thought you were stating it was a new Google and the thing about Care
>Rank.:-)

I do. I'm also mindful that you can't build Rome in a day.

BB


--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...el-of-joy.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...baby-deer.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...thouse-nj.html

On 29 Aug 2006 15:57:03 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:

>Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But Google have implemented the accessibility search engine, perhaps
>> an indication of things to come. Perhaps this is already a factor in
>> the algo, or did they just do it to make nice with blind folk? Which
>> is possible, Google are the "do no evil" crowd and it's in their
>> long-term interests to improve the environment that feeds them.
>
>How small is the % of people that have a visual issue, and how important
>are those people to business? Mind, those questions are neutral, I am not
>trying to imply that we should forget about people who have a hard time
>accessing the information on the Internet, but how many businesses are
>actually interested in this? I am afraid far to little.

I'd guess, about a handful, but if Google start laying down the law
about it then they'll have to get interested pretty quick, won't they?

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...el-of-joy.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...baby-deer.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/cryst...thouse-nj.html

"Big Bill" <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j5t8f2l343k0pjbjeksqogsb5nc5fautj2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:15:54 +0200, "Jezsta Web Productions"
> <Please-use-our-contact-form@jezsta.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns982E6EF4C6E96castleamber@130.133.1.4.. .
>>> Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>> If they did, as I've said time and again with respect to validation
>>>> and spamming in general, they'd have no index.
>>
>>I thought you were stating it was a new Google and the thing about Care
>>Rank.:-)
>
> I do. I'm also mindful that you can't build Rome in a day.

That is true. They have a lot of work ahead of them. But I am satisfied when
I look for things on Google, I feel it gives far better results than the
other 2.

Stacey

--
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
http://www.ecraftsonline.net/
A New Focus In Web Marketing - Search Engine Optimization
http://jezsta.com

Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On 29 Aug 2006 15:57:03 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But Google have implemented the accessibility search engine, perhaps
>>> an indication of things to come. Perhaps this is already a factor in
>>> the algo, or did they just do it to make nice with blind folk? Which
>>> is possible, Google are the "do no evil" crowd and it's in their
>>> long-term interests to improve the environment that feeds them.
>>
>>How small is the % of people that have a visual issue, and how
>>important are those people to business? Mind, those questions are
>>neutral, I am not trying to imply that we should forget about people
>>who have a hard time accessing the information on the Internet, but
>>how many businesses are actually interested in this? I am afraid far
>>to little.
>
> I'd guess, about a handful, but if Google start laying down the law
> about it then they'll have to get interested pretty quick, won't they?

Which Google isn't doing, hence the separate search box. Google and
Microsoft are two companies that can enforce good quality HTML and CSS.
Microsoft by fixing IE and hence breaking a lot of sites (I guess that
will happen in a way), and Google by honoring clean HTML over crap. The
latter will only happen if important companies are going to spit out
correct HTML. Since AFAIK Google's SERP page doesn't even validate I am
not going to hold my breath.

(Note that I *do* recommend validating HTML and that the above doesn't
contradict the reason why I recommend it in any way :-D )

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html