The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
From: cass-hacks
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:50:45 -0700
Local: Mon, Jun 11 2007 9:50 am
Subject: Re: Using CSS to hide text
> The -50px was the positioning Interesting. I'd have to take a stab at it though and say I think it > of a nested layer - it was 'top' . had to either have been coincidental or the css algo, if there is such a beast, had to have been crudely created or amazingly intelligent because a top:-50px style rule could either have no untoward rendering effect, meaning the supposed algo is crude or under some conditions, could have a rendering effect meaning the supposed algo was amazingly intelligent. I sort of have a hard time believing either scenario but who knows. It is interesting in any event! > I'm convinced the impact is That"s what Susan and JohnMu seemed to be saying as well, a bunch of > relatively small but if a page such as the one i worked is just > slightly on the wrong side of a quality threshold that small > difference was enough to push it over to the right side. little steps in the wrong direction and all of a sudden you are floating in air, briefly for a nanosecond before plunging 1,000 meters straight down. :-() > As usual this True, which is what I think is the case but the timing and the other > is all specualtion as for all i know it could have co-incided with an > unknown source deciding to link to that page etc. things you mentioned, it definitely would make one wonder! > Running css.stylesheets through the W3C CSS validator often produces Validating a style sheet would be about as useless as validating the > warnings about same colour backround/text etc which the > motoricerca.info/spam-detector/ does not detect - i wonder therefore > if googles alogs are more closely in tune with the W3C CSS checker. HTML. Either one can be perfectly valid yet render nothing but garbage and vice versa. Looking for "signals" on the other hand, might not be all that > Maybe google allocates to a site a percentage of permissable 'static' I doubt the static/dynamic/fresh thingy. I've seen too many sites > pages against dynamic/fresh content pages because despite it being a > static page with a history of little or no changes, it has a good serp > position. Other pages i have to change almost daily to maintain their > position and therefore i am loathed to change it back to -50px in > case it moves the page into the 'needs to be a fresh and updated' > field. that haven't been updated in literally half a decade that still rank well, as much as I wish they wouldn't. :-() But at the same time, maybe the -50px was a negative signal and it I know, we should start a "-50px penalty" and see if we can get other > 'So you believe the signals from the CSS files are processed and Google's cache has everything, up to and including any javascript used > reacted upon automatically?' - if they did not, then how would Googles > cached pages have all the styling acquired from an external css. i.e > the css is crawled at the same time. on the page. The Google stuff that is added sometimes conflicts or causes problems with a given page's styling but the cache is the entire page and all its contents. Craig You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||