[thesite] browsers.evolt updated look

Daniel J. Cody djc at starkmedia.com
Fri Jan 26 12:49:31 CST 2001

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, 

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.)


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.


> 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. :)


More information about the thesite mailing list