We've recently finished http://www.fuelcards.co.uk website. I am
tiring to get the most of organic traffic.

We've added keywords in different html elements, updated <title>,
META description and keywords (although I am still working on them) and
created xml sitemap.

Please me find if there is anything else I could do.

Many thanks,
Polly

> We've recently finished http://www.fuelcards.co.uk website. I am
> tiring to get the most of organic traffic.

Gonna be tough with that design.

> We've added keywords in different html elements, updated <title>,
> META description and keywords (although I am still working on them) and
> created xml sitemap.

Keywords a little with Yahoo and Lycos - but it is a little and
there's almost no effect elsewhere. There's virtually no indexable
text on the page - the search engines can't see text in graphics.

> Please me find if there is anything else I could do.

For fuck's sake get rid of that "Did you really want to leave Fuelcards
UK" - it's incredibly annoying. NEVER mess with browser behaviour -
it's not a golden rule, it's a platinum rule.

You also have 23 validation errors. And there are feelings among the
community that XHTML STRICT doesn't index well with some engines. HTML
4.01 TRANSITIONAL seems to work best of all at present.

On 19 Sep 2006 01:25:36 -0700, "Phil Payne"
<phil@isham-research.co.uk> wrote:

>> We've recently finished http://www.fuelcards.co.uk website. I am
>> tiring to get the most of organic traffic.
>
>Gonna be tough with that design.
>
>> We've added keywords in different html elements, updated <title>,
>> META description and keywords (although I am still working on them) and
>> created xml sitemap.
>
>Keywords a little with Yahoo and Lycos - but it is a little and
>there's almost no effect elsewhere. There's virtually no indexable
>text on the page - the search engines can't see text in graphics.
>
>> Please me find if there is anything else I could do.
>
>For fuck's sake get rid of that "Did you really want to leave Fuelcards
>UK" - it's incredibly annoying. NEVER mess with browser behaviour -
>it's not a golden rule, it's a platinum rule.
>
>You also have 23 validation errors. And there are feelings among the
>community that XHTML STRICT doesn't index well with some engines. HTML
>4.01 TRANSITIONAL seems to work best of all at present.

It's pointless going for strict if you can't do it.

BB
--

http://www.crystal-liaison.com/angel...-guardian.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/anri/black-king.html
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/art-i...ax-appeal.html

Phil Payne wrote:

>> We've recently finished http://www.fuelcards.co.uk website. I am
>> tiring to get the most of organic traffic.
>
> Gonna be tough with that design.
>
>> We've added keywords in different html elements, updated <title>,
>> META description and keywords (although I am still working on them) and
>> created xml sitemap.
>
> Keywords a little with Yahoo and Lycos - but it is a little and
> there's almost no effect elsewhere.

For Google, you must have different meta description on each page if they
are included, and I think it is best to include them because you then get
an opportunity to customize the text snippet.


> There's virtually no indexable
> text on the page - the search engines can't see text in graphics.

Definitely needs more text.


> You also have 23 validation errors. And there are feelings among the
> community that XHTML STRICT doesn't index well with some engines. HTML
> 4.01 TRANSITIONAL seems to work best of all at present.

It is validating in my browser (maybe it was fixed). Why wouldn't XHTML
Strict index well?

> Why wouldn't XHTML Strict index well?

I can't think of a logical reason, but that's true for most Google
peculiarities.

It seems to be a feeling going around, though. Personally, I can't see
why a bot looking for indexable text would care very much.