Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: Big Bill <kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:03:43 GMT
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:10:36 +0100, davidof
<david.george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Bokma wrote:
Same for li. I can think up reasons why li should have a little more
weight over p, since important stuff you normally put in lists.
That seems reasonable to me, although I can't see either having much
weigh in the overall sceme of things. It would strike me as completely
ormal that general body text would only appear in "extremely specific
search"es as the OP stated unless the page itself was very highly ranked.
Without knowing how Google works I would imagine they would just ignore
<PRE>.
I'm thinking that perhaps bulleted lists would sensibly be given
greater weight than information dispensed in paragraph tags.
Look at how key points are often made to stand out from the rest of
the page in that fashion.
BB
--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bill.kruse/music-posters-sitemap.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/memories-of-yesterday/index.html
kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Gifty! Shiny! BB!
.
- References:
- Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: dk_sz
- Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: John Bokma
- Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: canadafred
- Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: John Bokma
- Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- From: davidof
- Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- Prev by Date: Re: McDar showing IBL's in sync with each other
- Next by Date: Ping Roy...
- Previous by thread: Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- Next by thread: Re: Does text <Pre></Pre> rank poorly?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
