[thelist] Re: Search Engines

Andy Warwick mailing.lists at creed.co.uk
Sun Dec 2 17:40:17 CST 2001


On 2001-12-02 at 14:48, joel at spinhead.com (Joel D Canfield) wrote:

> In Shirley's defense, I'm under the impression there was quite a bit
> more to the interchange than happened on line. If you've followed her
> posts over the time she's been here, she's a pretty laid-back person. If
> she felt compelled to make an issue of it, that's her right. This list
> is almost entirely self-policed, and if we don't speak up when we feel
> someone's out of line, we're not doing our part to maintain list
> quality. You're entitled to your opinion as well, and since you state it
> politely I appreciate that you took the time to come out of lurker mode
> for a bit.
> 
<snip>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Shirley Kaiser, SKDesigns <skaiser1 at skdesigns.com>
> > Your attack is totally out of line, uncalled for, and I refuse to have
> 
> > a spam attack with you. Any further e-mail from you will go into my 
> > trash bin unless you choose to apologize, as I won't tolerate such 
> > rude e-mail from anyone.
> 
> IMHO of a lurker, you are being too posh here.
> Your correspondant took some of his time to write to you, it was not a
> BIG attack, and if you're so offended, then don't respond.. it's way
> better than do a selfish answer like the one you did. Sorry to say that,
> I suppose you won't tolerate any more email from me as I won't apologize
> for expressing my thoughts.

I too would like to jump to Shirley's defense here (but that doesn't mean I'm
attacking you Deke or Damien (Alliax)).

If you had a look at some of Shirley's many sites, aside from wondering where
she gets the time, you'd see that far from taking the position that "Search
engines Good", "Design Bad", Shirley's sites are amongst some of the nicest,
cleanest designs I've seen.

Given every message I have seen from Shirley ends with "warmly", and that her
tone has always been professional, measured and civil, it was fairly surprising
to see such a reply from her at first sight. But when you go back and read
Deke's message you'd probably agree.

He said:

>You, for instance,
>format your pages so that the text runs unreadably off the right side
>of the screen. That's not unfriendly to search engines - but it *is*
>unfriendly to users.

I, at least, don't see this. Sure, some of the text is a little nearer the RHS
than *I* would place it, but it certainly doesn't run off.

And, when talking directly about a client.

>Is that what you call good search engine ranking?

Oooh, harsh.

>Frankly, I think search engines aren't worth a whole lot of effort. Put
>the same effort into developing reciprocal links, and you get top-
>quality traffic and long-lasting results.

So a strong opinion makes every one else - with a contrary position - an idiot
and wrong. Again, fairly harsh.

>And it ought to be *useable*, not a frou-frou design site.

Strike three!

The implication that Shirley does design that is 'frou-frou' and not useable is
well out-of-order, and I can see how it would 'light the blue touch-paper'.

Given that I was a regular visitor to some of her sites for the content and
usability before I even *realised* they were hers says something to me. I've
found links to her sites from *all* sorts of places, where the whole focus is on
usability and good design that services the content.

Her Blog alone is worth a visit a couple of times a week.

I would imagine many, many people come to her sites via routes other than search
engines, so to imply that she is search engine fixated is a grave disservice.

In summing up her response, Shirley responded:

> And if you knew anything at all about my philosophy about design or my 
> work, none of your note would make any sense.

And I have to agree. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who has a better
overview of content vs. design than Shirley, and how search engines can be used
to a site's advantage, without spilling into the "Guaranteed top results in
search engine" hyperbole from countless spams; Shirley knows her stuff and is
worth taking notice of.

>From the other side, having gone back over a few of Deke's posts, he does tend
to come across fairly "frankly", so I am sure it wasn't intentional and a
personal attack.

I do, however, think we can cut Shirley some slack here in her response.

Who's for a group hug?

Regards

Andy Warwick

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I happen to the think that besides
Shirley being very talented, and having opinions and skills I respect a great
deal, she's also *really cute* <grin> Bear that in mind when weighting my
comments...) 





More information about the thelist mailing list