Is your site in CSS or table format?

I’ve hand coded for years now and I’ve tried and experimented with everything. Search engines change of course, but my recent findings indicate that it doesn’t really matter if you use tables or css really – but use tables in moderation. I use tables regularly, but I use external CSS files to define the layouts. Nested tables? To one level, but not generally deeper.

I wouldn’t overly concern yourself with one or the other. Just make the code efficient to some degree and you’ll be fine. Like Tryme, I use WordPress for CMS a fair bit too with some success.

If you are re-doing your site Gamtrak, I’d suggest designing one or two templates and calling the relevant one from each page: that way in the future you’ll only have to change one or two files if you want to alter layouts.

For people learning CSS I can recommend Bulletproof web design: Improving flexibility and protecting against worst-case scenarios with XHTML and CSS

It’s very well explained and starts with an example of a site that does things in a ‘wrong/not optimal way’ (ex: using nested tables for layouts) and then explains how you can do it with css.
I read it a few months ago and now make quite complex css-designs without much trouble with IE.

I suppose that using css improves your google rankings, because you can easily put your most important content first in the code. But more importantly: making correct use of css improves usability and gives your visitors a better experience!

@bb1webs 192284 wrote:

who can say no to her?) so I did just out of loyalty more than anything else (or so I told myself) … truth is that i know I need to make the jump to something different than frontpage.

Nah, there’s nothing wrong with Frontpage. Some of the most successful affiliates and webmasters I know use Frontpage.

And there’s nothing wrong with using tables for design purposes either. The whole CSS versus tables for design purposes debate is just kinda silly. Some table-based designs work great, and some CSS-based designs suck, and vice-versa.

Almost all of my sites are table-based and built in Frontpage, and most of them load lightening-fast.

I hand code my stuff, i do not use Dreamweaver although i have the entire cs4 master collection. I highly reccomend people who use frontpage and who cannot hand code use Dreamweaver. It is easy to learn and uses proper coding techniques. You would never touch Frontpage again, fact you would prob burn your copy, run it over, bury it in the yard etc. CSS has unlimited capabilities you can define anything for any code in CSS. The fact that your site will be more usable and accessible will only increase conversions and will not hurt you in any way.

@Ken~ 192464 wrote:

I hand code my stuff, i do not use Dreamweaver although i have the entire cs4 master collection. I highly reccomend people who use frontpage and who cannot hand code use Dreamweaver. It is easy to learn and uses proper coding techniques. You would never touch Frontpage again, fact you would prob burn your copy, run it over, bury it in the yard etc. CSS has unlimited capabilities you can define anything for any code in CSS. The fact that your site will be more usable and accessible will only increase conversions and will not hurt you in any way.

I share those exact feelings! :hattip:

Hi again all,

after giving it some thought (especially after Randy’s post) I came to the conclusion that it might be that the css or non-frontpage is the way to go and I agree since I’d surely trade places with someone who knows dreamweaver like I know frontpage.

that said from a SE pov it would IMHO make less sense to favor those sites designed by someone more knowledgeable in site design … because while that site might look better, be designed better … unless the site was professionally designed then it is quite likely the person with the knowledge you are seeking … would use frontpage or something similar to make their site. And actually less-likely they would hand code since their expertise is in the area of what you’re seeking and not web design (unless you’re looking for web design).

an example being if you wanted to learn basketball and google designed one site and Mike Jordan designed the other … well it is likely Mike’s site won’t look as fancy or have all the css stuff … but we all know which site we’d choose to learn from don’t we?

I do not know what se’s look for i am not well educated in that part .. but what i do know is CSS is better for ease of use for everyone. Once you get CSS you will understand but by no means i am saying convert to CSS you site that is converting cash. I am just saying that nothing is more flexabke then CSS.

A bit too late but just in case…

On my experience I found out that with or without table doesn’t make much of a difference in SEO results.

Content and popularity is what really matters.

In 2004 I did change gamblerplace.com from table to tableless… huge amount of work… didn’t change anything else and boom… nothing different happened.

What seems to make a difference like many said, it is to make the html as simple as possible using CSS. If Google have to spy a page with 50k of pure messy html (table or tableless) and another with 5k and similar content, I’m sure that will count something against the first one. 10 times more html for the same content in 10 mil pages makes a good difference.

Another thing that I’m sure counts for something is invalid html tag. If you say that will provide xhtml tags and then your pages have lots of opened tags (ie [HTML]
[/HTML] where should be [HTML]
[/HTML]), for me sounds like creating problem on simple things.

Old school and interesting facts:
xxxhttp://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

Again, as long as the html is somewhat clean and your site is popular, you should be good.

Never to late for good input! Thanks for the information.