21 replies to this topic

[shubhangid]

I have gone through an article regarding SEO on page optimisation,where it is mensioned that SEO point of view tableless design is best.
Please tell me which one is the best and why?

[saschaeh]

hi,

welcome to the Forum!

there has been a lot of discussion around this: http://www.cre8asite...e...c=53844&hl=

[AbleReach]

I'd like to add a vote for cleanly coded, easily updatable content. What helps you keep your sites fresh and interesting will help your rankings. If you've ever had to totally reconstruct a badly done WYSIWYG table to make room for a better navigation structure, you know what I mean.

CSS is a pain in the wazoo at first, but, wow, it can be fun and useful once you get into it.

[EGOL]

There are lots of replies to your question.

[AbleReach]

Those search results read like a who's who of web dev forums.

ROFLOL

Oh well. Good topic, though a bit done to death.

[saschaeh]

tehehe i wouldn't of thought the exact question would have results but there you go.

[jonbey]

After reviewing all the forums on which this question has been raised in the last few days, I conclude that without doubt, the best format for SEO is PDF. Just write it up in word, convert to PDF and upload. Easy.
The latest Google algo update enabled enhanced reading of PDFs. Not many people are taking advantage of this fantastic SEO secret. Do it now!

[bwelford]

Even if PDF was 100% as visible in the search engines (not only Google) as simple HTML web pages, I would be 100% against using them, jonbey. That of course is speaking as a human visitor who is looking at these things.

I find the PDF format most irritating. :mr_rant:

[saschaeh]

I heard someone once say that you should offer all important content as HTML and have supporting PDF's. Could even reword pdf slightly incase of duplication. I am not suggesting this I am just passing on that message.



ps: im also not a big fan of PDF

[jonbey]

I was only really joking about the pdf. Just thought I'd throw an alternative idea to the tables v's CSS fight.

But saying that, maybe there is a way to use pdf to our advantage somehow? If only to support as saschaeh says. Every little helps (maybe).

[cre8pc]

My UE site is tableless CSS. It loads quickly, and the pages are clean rather than gooked up with code. This makes it easier for engines to locate important content.

PDFs require a plug-in to view and for dial-up, would be too slow. PDF files do not pass accessibility standards for .gov sites in the USA and all sites in the UK that adhere to PAS 78.

In other words, if actual site visitors are important, PDF's are not advised.

[saschaeh]

also a note on pdf's. When your machine is low on memory and you already overloading it which you probably are... to open a pdf never mind 2 or 3 takes up a lot of resource and you sit while you wait for you computer to access its ohhhh sooo sloooow virtual memory.

[Ron Carnell]

This makes it easier for engines to locate important content.

That's a common anthropomorphism, Kim. Software programs don't do "easy" or "hard." It's either possible or not possible. They can either read your content or they can't. They don't give bonus points for making it easy.

Good clean code is always good for human visitors. It doesn't matter whether the code includes tables or divs; the latter can be just as easily and badly abused as the former. And very often is.

[EGOL]

...the latter can be just as easily and badly abused as the former...

I hear people cussing about it all of the time.

[Black_Knight]

Good clean code is always good for human visitors. It doesn't matter whether the code includes tables or divs; the latter can be just as easily and badly abused as the former. And very often is.

There's two other aspects to the argument too, other than just clean code.

The first is semantics - is your table design to correctly portray tabular data, or is it just to lay out blocks? All modern design is supposed to be more accessible by divorcing style from content. HTML should be meaningful and not just trying to lay out pretty styling. In all modern design one is supposed to use CSS for the stylistics, and leave the HTML as pure meaning as much as possible. Even table-less design is still supposed to use tables for laying out tables of data.

The second issue is again about accessibility - but this time it is about using no more code than is actually useful. Using an external style sheet enables all that instruction to be cached all through the visit, thus saving significant bandwidth and data transfer overheads on any extended visit.

Table-based design tends to use many nested tables, and all of the various table-element tags to position a piece of content that could be placed just as precisely with just a single line of CSS code. Over the course of thousands of visits, evgen such a small difference on each page can make a very significant difference to monthly and annual bandwidth and data transfer costs and requirements.

[EGOL]

Thank you Ammon. Great post!

I didn't realize that the style sheet can be cached.

[Ron Carnell]

Table-based design tends to use many nested tables, and all of the various table-element tags to position a piece of content that could be placed just as precisely with just a single line of CSS code.

Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration, Ammon? On both sides of the fence?

First, I think anyone who uses "many nested tables" is probably going to make just as much a mess of a page if they try to accomplish the same thing with divs. It's not so much that table-based design tends to use nested tables, I suspect, as it is that 99 percent of all web pages tend to be designed by people who don't know what they're doing

Second, I've never seen a multi-columnar design ever replaced with a single line of CSS. Typically, every table and td element is replaced with a corresponding div or other block-level construct, with a negligible difference in byte count. And that difference can go in either direction. The HTML elements, such as td or div, are so close to the same size as to be the same. It's only the attributes of those elements that gives tableless design a reputation for being more slender. And throwing a style attribute on a table or td isn't much different than throwing a font tag on a div; both are just sloppy coding. When table elements are styled in a CSS file, as they should be, the results can be every bit as lean and mean as tableless design.

I think there are a lot of really good reasons to eschew tables, especially complex and nested tables. In my opinion, bandwidth probably isn't one of them.

BTW, Ammon, since we don't cross paths as often these days, let me take this chance to wish you a good holiday season. With only a week remaining 'til Christmas, I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity. I sincerely hope things are going well for you. Ho, ho, ho and all that stuff.

[Respree]

Merry Christmas, Ammon (and to everyone else). We miss you.

[Jem]

ps: im also not a big fan of PDF

Do you use Adobe's pdf reader by any chance?

I constantly ranted about the speed and 'bulk' of PDFs back when I thought Adobe's offering was the only viable one in the PDF world.

When I ditched it and got Foxit I learned to love PDFs

[jonbey]

Yeah, I remember PDF being really slow to load. I also seem to recall that there were more, as I am sure that I used to hit "open as html" more often in Google. But now I use Firefox, not had a problem with slow loading. Seems as quick as any other page. Got a much beefier computer than I used to own too, that may help.