jeff wrote: > believe me when i say that what goes in the url has the most weight as far > as the search engines are concerned. if we can whittle the url down to just > the relevant parts, along with a properly formed url, we'll get higher > ratings in the search engines. most don't give a shit about meta tags. > most don't give a shit about alt text or comments. what they really look at > anymore is the title of the page and the url. i disagree with your disagreement :) I say the URL has equal weight as the title and the content of the page along with meta tags. The best example of this that I can pass along is our own list archives that have a generic URL, but have a subject in the title and of course the page itself. Yet these pages, as adam patrick posted yesterday, are almost always returned from sites like altavista and yahoo precisly because they've got relevant information and keywords in the body of the page. Further, http://www.google.com/search?q=browser+archive&hl=en&lr=&safe=off searching for 'browser archive' on google, browsers.evolt.org comes up as the #1 item returned. yet it only has keywords on the page itself and the title(the linking issue is another thing, granted.) http://www.google.com/search?q=netscape+6+download&hl=de&lr= http://www.google.com/search?q=bust+out+of+frames&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%2BXML+%2BASP+%2Battributes&kl=XX&pg=q&Translate=on http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=redirect+target+asp&hc=0&hs=2 http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=problems+with+netscape+and+asp&hc=0&hs=0 http://hotbot.lycos.com/?MT=trim+space+cold+fusion&SM=MC&DV=0&LG=any&DC=100&DE=2&AM1=MC&x=33&y=12 those are a sample of lines today from the referer logfile for lists.evolt.org. finally, i've failed to find any sort of information either on the w3 or webcrawler spider pages about spiders not parsing meta tags or higher relevance for URL and title. > i can understand the uncertainty of moving to a system that you don't > completely understand. let me reassure you that it will make more sense if > you have two sites to look at. this is especially true with browsers cause > it's just one small group of templates that perform a very specific > functionality. *shrug*.. > i think you missed my point about the rant so i'll just come out and say it. i got the point of your rant, and i can understand your frustration with the whole 'meetings about meetings' thing. i dont see how that pertains here.. so we're talking about the structure of thesite? what is the waste of that? its got a purpose and a goal, whereas a meeting about a meeting doesn't outside of itself. > i'm all for distributing the workload - once we've got more of this thing in > place. there are still some core elements that need to be addressed before > they can be explained to people that are unfamiliar with the way we do > things. exactly my point. *core* elements doesn't include moving the browser archive so we can have persistant logins for features that haven't been implemented yet, but we'd(perhaps?) consider 'core'. Of course, thats just my opinion, and I know yours is different.. :) BTW, to everyone else reading this,relax.. I got an email offlist yesterday from someone on thesite list that basically said, "Holy shit, you and jeff are having a flame war!!!!!" In case this is any sort of wide spread mis-conception, let me end it now.. :) I think i can speak for jeff here in saying that we like to argue with eachother.. not so much 'argue', but debate. its healthy, its ok, its for the best. we both respect eachothers opinion and are just trying to find good middle ground. IOW, don't worry about what the offlist email called, "The Admin Wars"..*laugh*.. we're both quite secure and ok with everything, healthy discussion is good. and the only admin war me and jeff will have is seeing who can drink more 'Dirty Girl Scouts' in austin this march ;) anyways. :) .djc.