Search Enhgines

The owners of a site I just finnished had another programmer evaluate and estimate thier site. The programmer who did the evaluation said the site was worth $30,000 where I said $45,000. This isn't the point of this thread though. She also ran a browser compatiblty check on the site files. It came up with near 50,000 cross browser errors. Everyone of the errors has to do with the ASP.Net control tags or an ID tag being on a none suported html tag.

The test program does not load files in the same way a browser does. It opens the file as if it where a file so it doesn't even read the post server process html. So at least 90% of this report is just redundent crap.

The question being brought up however is that search engines spider a site in a simular manner as this program. Does Microsoft not know this? Not care? Or what? This is a serious issue. I could care less about Opera and Netscape but the next phase of our project is an active effort to generate traffic and sales through search engines and e-mail marketing. If the search engine can't handle the asp.net tags and won't index and rank a page because of this what is the point of having all the power in ASP.Net if it lacks one of the key aspects of the internet the ability to be indexed by a search engine?

Has anyone worked with this problem or know anything about this? I really need input here and any comments are welcome.

Thanks

Search engines don't index the raw aspx pages. They only index what is served to them from the server. This tool you are talking about, do you run it locally on the aspx files? If they are evaluated before they are processed by the aspnet process in IIS, then of course you will get those weird results.

Do a validate by URL on this site:
http://validator.w3.org/
which, of course, is the authority on such matters.

Yes it is client on a pc and it loads from a directory. That was the first thing I pointed out in our meeting and I explained about the fact that the html that a browser actual loads is not the same as the aspx tags in the files them selves.

To be honest I'm not sure how much the search engine guys understand. The things they are pointing out are that it takes longer for a page to be indexed if it is dynamic and that databases cause problems with spiders. They actually want to split it off into two disconnected websites and make every sales page for a sales item instead of using database information and a dynamic page. I was planning to have a keyword field in the db and the like....

They also say having an images folder is bad. I'm not sure but I assume this goes with googles picture search somehow.

That's interesting that a tool that evaluates cross browser support would evaluate server side source files. What's the product? Wouldn't that mean that any page written in any server scripting language(php, jsp, etc) would fail? IE doesn't know how to parse a <asp:TextBox /> much less any other browser knows how to parse a JSP tag.

But now I'm really curious about the beginning of your post. How did that other programmer figure the site to be worth 15k less than what you came up with? And since you're done with the site, wouldn't your number be exactly what it actually cost to build the site? I woulda thunk they would bring that guy in before the project to come up with a price estimate, are they tryin to stiff you on the 15k?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magiaus

Yes it is client on a pc and it loads from a directory. That was the first thing I pointed out in our meeting and I explained about the fact that the html that a browser actual loads is not the same as the aspx tags in the files them selves.

To be honest I'm not sure how much the search engine guys understand. The things they are pointing out are that it takes longer for a page to be indexed if it is dynamic and that databases cause problems with spiders. They actually want to split it off into two disconnected websites and make every sales page for a sales item instead of using database information and a dynamic page. I was planning to have a keyword field in the db and the like....

They also say having an images folder is bad. I'm not sure but I assume this goes with googles picture search somehow.

---

Who are you doing business for? These guys have absolutely NO clue on what they are talking about obviously. It seems like you are getting pushed in a corner when you should be pushing them in a corner. Push back on them. Do your research. Ask the programmer why a static page is better? Is it because he/she doesn't understand database applications? Is this 'programmer' really just a html person?

If you are displaying a products showcase online, you make it database driven. Sites that are static resist change. What happens when you want to redesign your item pages? Well, you can update one page that is database driven, or you can update multiple pages since they are all static (introducing more chance for error on any one or all of the pages). Next, having your products in a database allow you to write other internal applications that allow normal people to edit the content without having to know HTML (even WYSIWYG editors are hard for most people).

A images folder is definately just fine to have. There is no benefit to having the images in a sub folder or in the same folder as the pages. NONE. The browser makes seperate requests for them no matter where they are on the server. The benefit of having a images folder, and seperate sub folders in it, is for proper organization and maintenance. What is their reasoning on this one? Doing this makes it easier to perform maintenance on the site for everyone.

Now, I will say that using friendly 'hackable' URL's is better for end users, but I think it is overkill for most sites. The only place I would use this is where you have a huge customer base that needs quick access to content about something on your site, and they are willing to invest the time to learn the scheme. Look at the http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/default.aspx new MSDN library site that they are working on for an example of this. On that link, you will notice the tip in the grey box. Read that to understand what I am talking about.

You need to be careful when working with a company like this.

I'm working for a small company directly.
I made what I now think was a bad deal, but I wasn't in a position to ask for $20,000 - $40,000. $20,000 was one of my early real value estimates.

I got into this because my friend quit his job, I happened to need a job. The Graphics/Print/Web Design/E-Markiting Company (3 Graphics guys & Gals, me, and the print press guy) went under a month after I started. I did 2 full rinky dink sites and updated a huge flat file site that really needs a db, and worked on http://pkpromo.com the site I'm working on now see http://new.pkpromo.com
login [email protected]
password freedemo

Everything on here is my work. I had a tiny bit of help with the site layout it is based on the business card. Don't mess around too much, but play if you like; it's in testing phase (no porn) and the data base will get dropped once more before we go live.

Anyway, I wasn't done with the update to pkpromo and there was all kinds of threats and lawsuits, and I wasn't being paid, and so on; finally it was worked out that I would do the new site for the deal.

The Deal is attached. I made the deal knowing this company made 2.2 mil in 2003. I had to redraft this contract 5 times under threat of lawsuit if I didn't include the man who went out of the web design biz.

All in all I fell into this. I did it because I need to do the work and I felt like I should finnish what I started with the other guy. I need to point out that where we are there is no one doing this and the people that are are bumkins.

The search engines guys just came into the picture and they want to charge $75 a page to do pages...... The owner of the company(pkpromo) hasn't commited to this and I have been trying to explain to him that the search engine guy is full of it and if not full of it completely he is offering something we can handle with our eyes closed.

I'm going to attach the browser report as well. I exagerated on the number of errors it isn't really 50,000 but it seems close enough when they are asking me to improve on it somehow in the next week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellswraith

Look at the http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/default.aspx new MSDN library site that they are working on for an example of this. On that link, you will notice the tip in the grey box. Read that to understand what I am talking about.

You need to be careful when working with a company like this.

---

Actually, there is a schema like this but you have to login to have any chance at it on the current site. The Sales site I am about to revamp and redo hopefull with db support. We are going to use two domains. pkpromo.com (sales) and pkpromosource.com (custom manufacturing).

The search engine guy is sales only I think he may work with a programmer, but only php. In fact he refuses to work on the same site with anyone else and refuses to use any thing other than php. He also said you should not use a database and that useing old html flat files and that picture nonesense.

Yes we are planning a product gallery scenerio. If you look at the new.pkpromo.com and login you'll get the basic idea if you look at the front of the old site as well. I already have information in the database that will be useful for sales and an order system built excluding the actual ui. I have all the data objects collections and so on. Complete Cat sub cat dynamic site menu ready to be fired up.

I quit two months ago though, when they told me about search engine boy. They have talked me into coming back for $15 an hr which is dirt cheap. There are no jobs here though and with no degree I don't have many options. There had already been other problems with a guy who was hosting a server locally. He couldn't keep his e-mail server straight and he kept trying to steal the site and change it over to ColdFusion. One day I opened my email on his mail sever and I had the e-mail inbox for every mail client he provided service too. Banks and so on. No joke. I called him to let him know and he got mad at me. This guy tried to start a fist fight one day.....

I've made $2500 for the work I've done.

okay finally. The girl who did that report just got out of school or is about to. They did this twice the second eval which I know nothing about gave a $45,000 rate.

Yikes....not sure where to start on this one. Is that review for real?? Tell that was freebie, cuz it wasn't even worth that much...

First and foremost, Sandra needs to be punched in the neck for that material. That review was one of the most useless, unprofessional, and completely meaningless documents I've ever seen. Out of 23,075 words(ya, that's 123 pages), only 338 words could actually be considered part of the "site review"...well, sort of. Somehow she worked in her opinion of Magiaus' worth as far as salary potential, which, the last time I checked, has nothing to do a site review. The other 22,737 words are the output from whatever tool was improperly used to perform the analysis.

Now perhaps there may be other documents left out, but you don't throw figures around like that without some sort of qualification, like, um, where she got the numbers from(I'm referring to her assessment of the site value).

I like the part where she lists all the data, ya that's pages 3 through 123(and page 1 was title of this "thing"). I wonder if anyone has actually read through all 123 pages...the customer? ya right.

She indicates that she ran tests on 378 fiiles. Yet funnily enough, if you look at the list of files she reviewed, there are quite a few appearing in that strange _vti_cnf directory...Somebody needs to brush up on Front Page extensions, and get a tool that know's about them as well.

Browser support. Always a sticky issue. I validated the front page, not so bad, 14 errors[at the time of this posting]. I use Firefox and didn't have a problem viewing the site. Also validated the vendors login page, 19 errors, none of which affected my use of the site. So the site isn't so friendly with Netscape 2.0 or Opera 2.1 or IE 3.0...SO WHAT, you've just counted out 3 people, none of which are prolly gonna be doing business with that site.

I can prolly go on for a while, but I'll spare the thread. Cool site though. I want a "Crap Cap" with my name on it.

It is an interesting site for sure. An ineresting thing to note also, is that a tech shop in the area recently opened a software development company. They just sold a program like the one I am almost done with for $300,000. $50,000 down and a 2 year development period.

I'm starting to seriously wonder at how to go about pricing my work and so on. How do we find the value of our work?

I know I charge to little now. I mean I have writen complex applications for as little as $200 bucks before and aparently I built this web site for at the least $15K under what I could have charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pvb

Yikes....not sure where to start on this one. Is that review for real?? Tell that was freebie, cuz it wasn't even worth that much...

First and foremost, Sandra needs to be punched in the neck for that material. That review was one of the most useless, unprofessional, and completely meaningless documents I've ever seen. Out of 23,075 words(ya, that's 123 pages), only 338 words could actually be considered part of the "site review"...well, sort of. Somehow she worked in her opinion of Magiaus' worth as far as salary potential, which, the last time I checked, has nothing to do a site review. The other 22,737 words are the output from whatever tool was improperly used to perform the analysis.

Now perhaps there may be other documents left out, but you don't throw figures around like that without some sort of qualification, like, um, where she got the numbers from(I'm referring to her assessment of the site value).

I like the part where she lists all the data, ya that's pages 3 through 123(and page 1 was title of this "thing"). I wonder if anyone has actually read through all 123 pages...the customer? ya right.

She indicates that she ran tests on 378 fiiles. Yet funnily enough, if you look at the list of files she reviewed, there are quite a few appearing in that strange _vti_cnf directory...Somebody needs to brush up on Front Page extensions, and get a tool that know's about them as well.

Browser support. Always a sticky issue. I validated the front page, not so bad, 14 errors[at the time of this posting]. I use Firefox and didn't have a problem viewing the site. Also validated the vendors login page, 19 errors, none of which affected my use of the site. So the site isn't so friendly with Netscape 2.0 or Opera 2.1 or IE 3.0...SO WHAT, you've just counted out 3 people, none of which are prolly gonna be doing business with that site.

I can prolly go on for a while, but I'll spare the thread. Cool site though. I want a "Crap Cap" with my name on it.

---

I read the first 20 or so pages, and go on if you like. I'm looking for input of any kind even if it is just disgust.... at least I'll know I'm not the only one disgusted by it.

Man,

That document of hers is sooo bad, I don't know what to tell you.

Here you go, this is my advice:

First, ask her if she knows what .NET is in front of the boss. Of course, she will say yes.

Then, ask her if she knows how the asp.net worker process parses the pages and runs the code before serving up asp.net pages to the user. Here is where things get fun.

If she says yes: Ask her why she would ever use a file based tool to validate files that NEVER make it out to the client that way. She should be using a tool that actively requests the pages, then validates them. Every 2nd year college student should know that.

If she says no: Then ask her how she can be comfortable evaluating a cost of a web site that uses a technology she doesn't understand.


Her report shows everything you need. .ascx files are NEVER served up on their own, yet they are included in the report. .config files are NEVER served up on their own, yet they are included in the report. The tool she used to evaluate was completely wrong, and she needs to own up to it in front of the boss. Make sure she does.

This is your reputation, don't ever let someone trample on it when they don't know what they are talking about. Speak up. I tell you what, if you never do, someone is going to be taking over your jobs. You know this stuff, argue. Don't let someone come into your domain and tell you how it is.

Hope everything works out for you.

By the way, I liked the site. I just breezed through it, and it looks pretty good.

I've gotten the point across that the report isn't worth much, and they aren't worried about it. Now I just have to convince them that we don't have to make every "Sales" page an html file to get good search engine ranks.

I have to say also that I'm really not bothered by Sandra doing the report or them asking for it. The only part that bothers me is that she didn't know or didn't tell them that it wasn't a valid report. I mean for the most part she spoke in my favor she just tried to make it look like I didn't know anything about browsers. I provided browser usage stats and explained about the server side code and server side tags. That seemed to clear up the issues about the report.

Your right though Hellswraith this is my reputation and I think that more than anything else is why I am putting up this and trying to finnish the site. I don't want to damage my rep. when I was trying to improve it by adding work to my porfolio..... what I wouldn't give for a nice low stress IT job in an IT department I didn't have to run though.....

Maybe have a small session with them, where you explain basic search engine concepts and things about server side languages so that they understand what's going on.

It'll help you defend your point and at the same point, educate them and the lovely the wonderful Sandra.

I'm debating with myself right now.

http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2004/12/1.gif Make $15 an hour to make an html page(never ending) or make $15 an hour to make a tool(ending) page..? http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2004/12/1.gif

All Your Sales Are Belong To Us

Seriously though, we are meeting soon and I plan to talk with them about it. I need to do an actual test with a dynamic and static page. Same keywords, title links and stuff. The dynamic page having dynamic links to index and dynamic keywords and content. I am just lazy. I know the only thing found will be it takes a little longer to index the dynamic page. I'm just not seeing how that is going to make a real diffreance in the long run.

Honestly, if we are running a bot to keep it ranked and check the ranks, it is going to slow the bot up; but not much.

Okay.

We have Keywords, Text, Title and link that are indexed. Some spiders don't index characters in an URL/URI that are special?

I have a simple answer. It may not be the best but it may work. If some spiders have trouble with links or pages that use a quary string to pass page setup info; why not still use the database and dynamic pages and instead use a product page name schema. This may or may not make since or be simple, but what I was thinking was to use the cat and sub cat as folders; this helps spriders. Use the product name for the file name. Which also helps the spiders. Images can be either or; but it would be nice to be able to use them across the board for flyers and email.

The page can still load information in the database, we have info in the database for reports, flyers, and what ever a little bar graph that shows what is #1. yay. We can allow sales items to be searched even on keywords.

So I'm thinking about about a mix mode tool. It creates a new flat file that can be indexed better than a link with query info. With a unique URI/URL in the db to use to load info.

What do you guys think? Does that make sense? I pretty much thought it out while I typed it.

oh, btw I had to close up the free demo. If anyone wants to see the manufacturer side though, sign up. The manufactuer side is what I'm working on now then we move to the sales.

Check this out:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...lrewriting.asp

It might help you solve everything about the search engines.

Thanks. URL formatting is something I was going to look into. I think it is the best anwser. Better than trying to build a hybrid system like I was going to attempt to do.

I need to finnish my story though.

They wanted me to do about 2-3 weeks of work with no pay, before I could start the $15 an hour. I got a bad feeling about it and had a general over all impression of it was time to cut my losses and move on; so thats what I did.

I'm looking for a "real" job now. I think I may have a line on one, but I have done my last freelance job.

What a bag of crap...

The only reason people even mention using static pages for search engines is because the search engine crawlers USED to have problems indexing dynamic page with long QueryStrings.

It doesn't seem to be such a problem now but you should still try to make it as easy for them as possible. Hence URL rewriting is a very good habit to get into.

There are much more important things with respect to search engines though e.g. ensure there are actually the text links there for the crawler to find every page on the site rather than using, for example, a javascript menu. Lets not forget the most important thing CONTENT!

Sounds like you've had a tough time from a bunch of t**ts that no nothing of what they speak!

DJ

That's one of the reasons I left the job. I mean if people don't know what they are talking about and they are trying to tell me how to do my job and won't listen to my advice...... well it was just to agrivating. Now I just have to find a new job....