As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
customization options for your search box, including the ability to
tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
post at:
> As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> post at:
When you do a search using your new features it no longer reports how
many links it finds. For example a search for "Cunningham" reports
showing results 1-10 but no longer says showing results 1-10 of
29,200. It is really very important that I know the total results and
wondered if there is a way to show that from all the options.
Note I am a large history site with many antiquarian manuscripts and
books and thus it is helpful to know the number of pages with a name
on them.
> As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> post at:
Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
layout of my site, ~560px.
Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
requires more horizontal real estate?
With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
use of something I can do other ways.
I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
> Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
> required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
> Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
> layout of my site, ~560px.
> Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
> the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
> requires more horizontal real estate?
> With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
> width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
> ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
> time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
> use of something I can do other ways.
> I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
> that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
> estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
> As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> post at:
> The old way; a Search box was setup with radio Buttons to "Search This
> Site", "Search another url" "Search the web".
> From what I see; now Search can only be set up to search specific urls
> OR Search the web.
> How do I set it up now so my Users can choose between searching the
> site and searching the web?
> Thanks.
> On May 5, 8:33 pm, AdSensePro Stephanie wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> > search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> > customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> > tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> > You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> > post at:
> From what I see; now Search can only be set up to search specific urls
> OR Search the web.
Not exactly, but close.
You can set it up so that only the select sites/pages are included or
only search the entire web but, you can also set it up, from the
advanced search options link so that it searches the entire web but
prioritizes search results based on "included" and "excluded" sites.
You can also add keywords to be considered so that the results can be
more finely tuned to favor your site even when searching the entire
web in addition to the included sites/pages.
It may not be exactly the same as one was able to do in the past but
from my experience with Google's Custom Search Engine, which AdSense
for Search now seems based on, the new method provides a much better
experience for the end user while at the same time, giving webmasters
all the tools needed to help make sure results from their sites show
up prominently.
One thing that is new though, or at least it seems new to me, the
search functionality seems to index sites/pages which have been
"included" more thoroughly than normal Google Search so if there is
something an included page/site has that is unique, it is more likely
to be found.
I have a large site, and I want to give my visitors the option of
searching just my site. In fact, I first set up a Google search box on
my site in response to many requests to do just that by visitors. I
know that it can be done simply by adding my URL to the keywords in
the search box, and I tell that to visitors who inquire. But many
people don't know that and don't inquire. Of course, I can always
simply use the old code, which is what I'm doing, since I can also
control the background colors with it. But then I lose the advantages
of the new system. So why can't the new system allow me to choose my
own background colors and radio buttons, if I continue to want them?
> > From what I see; now Search can only be set up to search specific urls
> > OR Search the web.
> Not exactly, but close.
> You can set it up so that only the select sites/pages are included or
> only search the entire web but, you can also set it up, from the
> advanced search options link so that it searches the entire web but
> prioritizes search results based on "included" and "excluded" sites.
> You can also add keywords to be considered so that the results can be
> more finely tuned to favor your site even when searching the entire
> web in addition to the included sites/pages.
> It may not be exactly the same as one was able to do in the past but
> from my experience with Google's Custom Search Engine, which AdSense
> for Search now seems based on, the new method provides a much better
> experience for the end user while at the same time, giving webmasters
> all the tools needed to help make sure results from their sites show
> up prominently.
> One thing that is new though, or at least it seems new to me, the
> search functionality seems to index sites/pages which have been
> "included" more thoroughly than normal Google Search so if there is
> something an included page/site has that is unique, it is more likely
> to be found.
Sorry, but one real big drawback is that since the templates are in a
imported style sheet I cannot edit the size and look of the search
bar. I put mine in a sidebar.htm which is 150px and is loaded in a
frame on every page. Since the size is so large now and I can't edit
it. It throws everything out of wack.
> As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> post at:
I agree, I had mine set to the minimum of 500 which gave it a clean
look. Now visitors will have to scroll over to the right to see my
adsense adds on the right side.
> Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
> required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
> Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
> layout of my site, ~560px.
> Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
> the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
> requires more horizontal real estate?
> With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
> width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
> ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
> time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
> use of something I can do other ways.
> I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
> that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
> estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
> I agree, I had mine set to the minimum of 500 which gave it a clean
> look. Now visitors will have to scroll over to the right to see my
> adsense adds on the right side.
> On May 6, 8:56 pm, Cass-hacks wrote:
> > Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
> > required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
> > Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
> > layout of my site, ~560px.
> > Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
> > the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
> > requires more horizontal real estate?
> > With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
> > width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
> > ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
> > time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
> > use of something I can do other ways.
> > I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
> > that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
> > estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
> You can adjust the width of the search widget by setting the character
> width of the search text entry.
> On May 11, 3:28 pm, Pathfinder wrote:
> > I agree, I had mine set to the minimum of 500 which gave it a clean
> > look. Now visitors will have to scroll over to the right to see my
> > adsense adds on the right side.
> > On May 6, 8:56 pm, Cass-hacks wrote:
> > > Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
> > > required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
> > > Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
> > > layout of my site, ~560px.
> > > Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
> > > the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
> > > requires more horizontal real estate?
> > > With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
> > > width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
> > > ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
> > > time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
> > > use of something I can do other ways.
> > > I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
> > > that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
> > > estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
"You can adjust the width of the search widget by setting the
character
width of the search text entry. "
The text field is not the problem. It is the huge jpeg/gif that takes
up a lot of banner real estate.
Take a look at my site. I want my search engine in the left frame so
it is viewable on all pages. Right now I put it in the index.htm and
it still does not look right. It is too big http://pccogs.com
> You can adjust the width of the search widget by setting the character
> width of the search text entry.
> On May 11, 3:28 pm, Pathfinder wrote:
> > I agree, I had mine set to the minimum of 500 which gave it a clean
> > look. Now visitors will have to scroll over to the right to see my
> > adsense adds on the right side.
> > On May 6, 8:56 pm, Cass-hacks wrote:
> > > Problem, to display results within a page of one's site, one is
> > > required to provide a minimum width of 795px for search results.
> > > Under the CSE interface, I was able to use a width that better fit the
> > > layout of my site, ~560px.
> > > Is it that CSE provides the ability to place ads above, above and to
> > > the right or above and bellow whereas AdSense for CSE doesn't and so
> > > requires more horizontal real estate?
> > > With my layout, I can afford to give search results up to 750px in
> > > width but beyond that, I can't guarantee that the search results and
> > > ads won't partially be scrolled off the page and I didn't spend the
> > > time to get the layout to work just to have it broken to support the
> > > use of something I can do other ways.
> > > I do like though that this now provides many of the benefits of CSE
> > > that were lacking in AdSense for Search in the past but the real
> > > estate requirement is making it a non-starter for me. :-(
I was pleased to see that Adsense for Search had been improved.
However, when I tried setting it up, I found that the markup is now
xhtml.
I am repeating myself (from an earlier post I made in the feedback
section) but is there any chance of AdSense for Search being made
available in strict html 4.01?
> As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> post at:
> The text field is not the problem. It is the huge jpeg/gif that takes
> up a lot of banner real estate.
Ah, I see what you mean.
I use the first branding option, that has the branding internal to the
search text field. It seems much simpler and doesn't seem to need to
import style sheets so as far as I can tell, the background color of
the form is whatever the default is for the area the search is
contained in. Would it be possible for you to use the same?
> Take a look at my site. I want my search engine in the left frame so
> it is viewable on all pages. Right now I put it in the index.htm and
> it still does not look right. It is too big http://pccogs.com
True, not only is it too big but the separation of the branding and
the actual search elements are a bit distracting/confusing.
But, the search field and submit button combined, even without the
branding, are wider than the sidebar so were there no branding at all,
it is still too wide.
On the other hand, if you got the search form, search field and submit
button, down to a "reasonable" size, reasonable for where you want it
to go, you could use the option to display the branding below the
search box, assuming that is not already the way you have it
currently. Or, just use the first option to use the internal branding
and forget about the branding image.
All in all though, it seems you are trying to stuff 5 pounds of
sausage into a 2 pound sausage skin, the search form, search field +
submit button, itself is ~280px while the sidebar appears to be only
~200px.
I dug up a backup of the previous search engine I had installed. Note
that I really don't know nothing about coding. I just tinker and try
to figure out how things work. I did however got the old engine to
fit, but can't remember what exactly what I trimmed up hehe.
That's about far as I can go without going into the hidden fields.
Right now I'm not to sure if I should go with my current 3 column
style. It does have it's limitations and my plan for the site is for
mmorpg gaming support and a bit of ecommerce which I plan on setting
up as soon as I get hooked up with a distributor. I really need some
guidance on the look since I am just a rookie to all of this.
> > The text field is not the problem. It is the huge jpeg/gif that takes
> > up a lot of banner real estate.
> Ah, I see what you mean.
> I use the first branding option, that has the branding internal to the
> search text field. It seems much simpler and doesn't seem to need to
> import style sheets so as far as I can tell, the background color of
> the form is whatever the default is for the area the search is
> contained in. Would it be possible for you to use the same?
> > Take a look at my site. I want my search engine in the left frame so
> > it is viewable on all pages. Right now I put it in the index.htm and
> > it still does not look right. It is too big http://pccogs.com
> True, not only is it too big but the separation of the branding and
> the actual search elements are a bit distracting/confusing.
> But, the search field and submit button combined, even without the
> branding, are wider than the sidebar so were there no branding at all,
> it is still too wide.
> On the other hand, if you got the search form, search field and submit
> button, down to a "reasonable" size, reasonable for where you want it
> to go, you could use the option to display the branding below the
> search box, assuming that is not already the way you have it
> currently. Or, just use the first option to use the internal branding
> and forget about the branding image.
> All in all though, it seems you are trying to stuff 5 pounds of
> sausage into a 2 pound sausage skin, the search form, search field +
> submit button, itself is ~280px while the sidebar appears to be only
> ~200px.
> I dug up a backup of the previous search engine I had installed. Note
> that I really don't know nothing about coding. I just tinker and try
> to figure out how things work.
Ah, a code hack, that's how I started out. I've got a couple of years
on you but just continue the way you are going and you'll get there.
One thing though, Google Search is your friend! If you have a question
about an html element, "html input" for example or a question about
CSS, "css background" for example or "javascript date" for example
usually turn up everything you'd ever need.
What I find works best though is to tinker until I break things and
then try to figure out how to un-break them, usually with Professor
Google's help. ;-)
More often than not though I end up doing things totally different
than what I had originally set out to do though and sometimes even end
up with a new function or feature that I hadn't expected either. ;-)
Sort of like trying to come up with a new type of super glue and
instead, ending up with something that barely sticks to anything and
calling it a "Post-it" as if that was what they set out to create in
the first place! :-()
> I did however got the old engine to
> fit, but can't remember what exactly what I trimmed up hehe.
I'd start to worry about you if you were able to remember all the
various code snippets you have ever come across, "needing to get a
life", comes to mind. :-()
[code removed, useful for me to see but no longer needed]
Listing more code wouldn't help very much, I think the operative
section is the text input attribute/value, size="21" which happens to
be what your current search box is using, which also seems to fit now
I noticed.
That is not exactly a fair comparison though because you no longer
have the logo thingy to worry about and I can't remember what the text
input "size" was before. :-(
But then again, it's bad enough if one can remember every piece of
code one has ever written but were I to start remembering all the code
you ever used, I'd be in line for a straight jacket. :-()
That's not to say I don't need a jacket with the ties in the back
anyway, just that this is not indicative. ;-)
But, I do see in your latest coding that it seems to fit much better
than previously so that's good! :-)
> Right now I'm not to sure if I should go with my current 3 column
> style.
6 dozen of one, half of the other. ;-) There are advantages and
disadvantages to just about every possible layout. :-(
> It does have it's limitations and my plan for the site is for
> mmorpg gaming support and a bit of ecommerce which I plan on setting
> up as soon as I get hooked up with a distributor.
Cool! How soon are you hoping to get hooked up?
> I really need some
> guidance on the look since I am just a rookie to all of this.
I can't draw a straight line even using a straight edge for guidance
so don't ask me about style. What I do is approach things from an
engineering point of view. I make a list of everything I feel is
needed on a given page and then look at other pages that may seem to
need other things not found on other pages.
Then, I try to gauge the relative importance of the various elements
and try to place them accordingly. If I have a lot of different kinds
of elements needed but which can be grouped together in relatively
logical sub-groups, I'll use that grouping to decide whether to use a
two column or three column or even the bastardized two/faux-three
column layout I use at cass-hacks.com, not that I would recommend
anyone do that! :-()
One thing to keep in mind, although one can to a certain extent
totally change layouts on the fly, from single column for mobile to
two column for narrow screen resolutions to full fluid three column
layouts, all without touching the HTML, setting it up that way is not
so easy. On the other hand, once one has a solid layout, changing
things like borders, fonts, backgrounds etc. is easy so the most
important thing is getting the layout right in the first place.
So my advice would be to list what you want on a page and then figure
out how to group things, then figure out the layout and finally, the
coloring and styling needed to "fit" the site.
I'm not saying I'm successful at doing that, only that that is the
only way I can get past a blank html file with nothing in it but the
head and body tags. ;-)
"Cool! How soon are you hoping to get hooked up? "
Just a quick reply before I head out to work. I should at least
here from one distributor this week. I finalized my application with
a few faxes last friday and I have at least 3 more I attend to
approach and all require faxing or mail. None are a complete online
set up.
> > I dug up a backup of the previous search engine I had installed. Note
> > that I really don't know nothing about coding. I just tinker and try
> > to figure out how things work.
> Ah, a code hack, that's how I started out. I've got a couple of years
> on you but just continue the way you are going and you'll get there.
> One thing though, Google Search is your friend! If you have a question
> about an html element, "html input" for example or a question about
> CSS, "css background" for example or "javascript date" for example
> usually turn up everything you'd ever need.
> What I find works best though is to tinker until I break things and
> then try to figure out how to un-break them, usually with Professor
> Google's help. ;-)
> More often than not though I end up doing things totally different
> than what I had originally set out to do though and sometimes even end
> up with a new function or feature that I hadn't expected either. ;-)
> Sort of like trying to come up with a new type of super glue and
> instead, ending up with something that barely sticks to anything and
> calling it a "Post-it" as if that was what they set out to create in
> the first place! :-()
> > I did however got the old engine to
> > fit, but can't remember what exactly what I trimmed up hehe.
> I'd start to worry about you if you were able to remember all the
> various code snippets you have ever come across, "needing to get a
> life", comes to mind. :-()
> [code removed, useful for me to see but no longer needed]
> Listing more code wouldn't help very much, I think the operative
> section is the text input attribute/value, size="21" which happens to
> be what your current search box is using, which also seems to fit now
> I noticed.
> That is not exactly a fair comparison though because you no longer
> have the logo thingy to worry about and I can't remember what the text
> input "size" was before. :-(
> But then again, it's bad enough if one can remember every piece of
> code one has ever written but were I to start remembering all the code
> you ever used, I'd be in line for a straight jacket. :-()
> That's not to say I don't need a jacket with the ties in the back
> anyway, just that this is not indicative. ;-)
> But, I do see in your latest coding that it seems to fit much better
> than previously so that's good! :-)
> > Right now I'm not to sure if I should go with my current 3 column
> > style.
> 6 dozen of one, half of the other. ;-) There are advantages and
> disadvantages to just about every possible layout. :-(
> > It does have it's limitations and my plan for the site is for
> > mmorpg gaming support and a bit of ecommerce which I plan on setting
> > up as soon as I get hooked up with a distributor.
> Cool! How soon are you hoping to get hooked up?
> > I really need some
> > guidance on the look since I am just a rookie to all of this.
> I can't draw a straight line even using a straight edge for guidance
> so don't ask me about style. What I do is approach things from an
> engineering point of view. I make a list of everything I feel is
> needed on a given page and then look at other pages that may seem to
> need other things not found on other pages.
> Then, I try to gauge the relative importance of the various elements
> and try to place them accordingly. If I have a lot of different kinds
> of elements needed but which can be grouped together in relatively
> logical sub-groups, I'll use that grouping to decide whether to use a
> two column or three column or even the bastardized two/faux-three
> column layout I use at cass-hacks.com, not that I would recommend
> anyone do that! :-()
> One thing to keep in mind, although one can to a certain extent
> totally change layouts on the fly, from single column for mobile to
> two column for narrow screen resolutions to full fluid three column
> layouts, all without touching the HTML, setting it up that way is not
> so easy. On the other hand, once one has a solid layout, changing
> things like borders, fonts, backgrounds etc. is easy so the most
> important thing is getting the layout right in the first place.
> So my advice would be to list what you want on a page and then figure
> out how to group things, then figure out the layout and finally, the
> coloring and styling needed to "fit" the site.
> I'm not saying I'm successful at doing that, only that that is the
> only way I can get past a blank html file with nothing in it but the
> head and body tags. ;-)
Like Alastair I was also worried that the new search feature does not
display how many links it finds. My site visitors will also be
interested in this figure, is there any way I can change the settings
so that it displays the total number of results?
> When you do a search using your new features it no longer reports how
> many links it finds. For example a search for "Cunningham" reports
> showing results 1-10 but no longer says showing results 1-10 of
> 29,200. It is really very important that I know the total results and
> wondered if there is a way to show that from all the options.
> Note I am a large history site with many antiquarian manuscripts and
> books and thus it is helpful to know the number of pages with a name
> on them.
> Alastair
> On May 5, 9:33 pm, AdSensePro Stephanie wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > As mentioned in the subject line, we’ve just improved AdSense for
> > search by integrating Custom Search. This means you now have more
> > customization options for your search box, including the ability to
> > tailor your search results and ads to your users and their interests.
> > You can find more info about the new features and options in our blog
> > post at:
> > I dug up a backup of the previous search engine I had installed. Note
> > that I really don't know nothing about coding. I just tinker and try
> > to figure out how things work.
> Ah, a code hack, that's how I started out. I've got a couple of years
> on you but just continue the way you are going and you'll get there.
> One thing though, Google Search is your friend! If you have a question
> about an html element, "html input" for example or a question about
> CSS, "css background" for example or "javascript date" for example
> usually turn up everything you'd ever need.
> What I find works best though is to tinker until I break things and
> then try to figure out how to un-break them, usually with Professor
> Google's help. ;-)
> More often than not though I end up doing things totally different
> than what I had originally set out to do though and sometimes even end
> up with a new function or feature that I hadn't expected either. ;-)
> Sort of like trying to come up with a new type of super glue and
> instead, ending up with something that barely sticks to anything and
> calling it a "Post-it" as if that was what they set out to create in
> the first place! :-()
> > I did however got the old engine to
> > fit, but can't remember what exactly what I trimmed up hehe.
> I'd start to worry about you if you were able to remember all the
> various code snippets you have ever come across, "needing to get a
> life", comes to mind. :-()
> [code removed, useful for me to see but no longer needed]
> Listing more code wouldn't help very much, I think the operative
> section is the text input attribute/value, size="21" which happens to
> be what your current search box is using, which also seems to fit now
> I noticed.
> That is not exactly a fair comparison though because you no longer
> have the logo thingy to worry about and I can't remember what the text
> input "size" was before. :-(
> But then again, it's bad enough if one can remember every piece of
> code one has ever written but were I to start remembering all the code
> you ever used, I'd be in line for a straight jacket. :-()
> That's not to say I don't need a jacket with the ties in the back
> anyway, just that this is not indicative. ;-)
> But, I do see in your latest coding that it seems to fit much better
> than previously so that's good! :-)
> > Right now I'm not to sure if I should go with my current 3 column
> > style.
> 6 dozen of one, half of the other. ;-) There are advantages and
> disadvantages to just about every possible layout. :-(
> > It does have it's limitations and my plan for the site is for
> > mmorpg gaming support and a bit of ecommerce which I plan on setting
> > up as soon as I get hooked up with a distributor.
> Cool! How soon are you hoping to get hooked up?
> > I really need some
> > guidance on the look since I am just a rookie to all of this.
> I can't draw a straight line even using a straight edge for guidance
> so don't ask me about style. What I do is approach things from an
> engineering point of view. I make a list of everything I feel is
> needed on a given page and then look at other pages that may seem to
> need other things not found on other pages.
> Then, I try to gauge the relative importance of the various elements
> and try to place them accordingly. If I have a lot of different kinds
> of elements needed but which can be grouped together in relatively
> logical sub-groups, I'll use that grouping to decide whether to use a
> two column or three column or even the bastardized two/faux-three
> column layout I use at cass-hacks.com, not that I would recommend
> anyone do that! :-()
> One thing to keep in mind, although one can to a certain extent
> totally change layouts on the fly, from single column for mobile to
> two column for narrow screen resolutions to full fluid three column
> layouts, all without touching the HTML, setting it up that way is not
> so easy. On the other hand, once one has a solid layout, changing
> things like borders, fonts, backgrounds etc. is easy so the most
> important thing is getting the layout right in the first place.
> So my advice would be to list what you want on a page and then figure
> out how to group things, then figure out the layout and finally, the
> coloring and styling needed to "fit" the site.
> I'm not saying I'm successful at doing that, only that that is the
> only way I can get past a blank html file with nothing in it but the
> head and body tags. ;-)
