Need help w/website ASAP!!!

[BCFLawnLandscape]

Having my site professionally designed, complete with SEO etc. Wanted to give you all the site and I welcome ALL feedback and criticism. I want to know what you would add and or subtract from the site etc. So please... Tear this up as much as you'd like. Thanks in advance!!

http://bcflawn.dev.accu-find.com/Default.aspx

[scotts lawn care]

Looks great to me! I hope mine turns out this good. I'm getting a website built this week.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ProMaintenance]

Your website looks very good. I only have a single page site that we are going to build up this month. Im going to use your website as an example for my web guy. I think the pay your bill feature is an outstanding idea. The only thing i can think of as negative is the scrolling picture on your home page moves a little fast for my taste but it is a very professional site. I am jealous.

[walker-talker]

looks good. Whats your monthly fee for the credit card setup?

[GunnPropertyServices]

very nice site, whos the pay online option thru? when you hit make payment it says your $ amount as a donation, that should prolly be changed

[mdvaden]

Pretty good, although personally I don't care for landscape sites that have a lot of green on green.

The description tag content is different. Can't recall seeing the contact put in a description tag before. Seems odd.

Keywords won't hurt, but they are pretty much becoming obsolete in tags anymore. I deleted the keywords tag from most of my main pages, and my traffic never decreased an ounce.

[BCFLawnLandscape]

If anyone is interested my guy designed this site for me for about 700 bucks. This is a great deal and a one time charge. You do have to host through them, but that's not a big deal. PM me if you'd like the contact info I can hook you up with my guy. He's good!

[BCFLawnLandscape]

Monthly fee for credit card setup is about 20 bucks, well worth it, 99% of the world is going to credit and debit cards. This is a great way for them to pay online without buying stamps, writing a check etc. I get my money ALOT faster this way!

[jdutcher003]

the website looks great!

who do the credit cards go through? I am looking into accepting credit cards next season so that way I will have no problem with people not paying.

[mark123]

... I welcome ALL feedback and criticism. I want to know what you would add and or subtract from the site etc. So please... Tear this up as much as you'd like. Thanks in advance!! ...
Here are a few things I noticed while quickly looking at the site.
First, it looks really nice.
The underlying code is rather poor and much heavier than necessary.
Outdated markup. Specifically <center> and <font> jumped out at me.
Tables based layout (http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html) bits are unnecessary.
The layout is broken:
http://boughterslawncare.com/brokenSite.jpg
The thumbnails in the gallery are really large in file size for how small they are. In fact all the images are rather heavy.
Have them compress the VIEWSTATE on the ASP.NET form.
The output isn't compressed (gzip will serve the pages faster).
Url: http://bcflawn.dev.accu-find.com/Default.aspx

Content type: utf-8
Page size: 11,732 bytes
Served uncompressed

-= This page repacked with various levels of compression =-

Deflate, max compression: 4912 bytes (59% reduction)
Deflate, max speed: 5208 bytes (56% reduction)
Deflate, default: 4912 bytes (59% reduction)
GZip: 4930 bytes (58% reduction)

I'd have them fix these issues.

[mdvaden]

Tables-based may not be neccessary, but they are still completely functional too.

Just heart Matt Cutts on a video explaining that tables is not really going to be a penalizer for SEO or SERP purposes.

So either way is fine. Although if greater flexibility is desired, one may need to leave tables by the wayside. But I have seen tables sites leave CSS sites by the wayside too, when it comes to rankings.

Guess it just boils down to a matter of taste and need.

The gallery images did not seem exceedingly big being near 60Kb apiece. But after you mentioned the size, it was at least evident that the home page little images were fairly hefty for their size too. They are not big as far as a home page's total kilobytes goes, but definitely bigger than tiny images need to be. Like what ... 70Kb.

And then those gallery thumbnails you pointed out too.

And maybe 5 to 20 would suffice, for either the thumbnails or home page images.

Its been amazing sometimes, visiting one tree forum, where the avatar display is limited to 200 pixels, but the forum software allows bigger files and resizes. So if one clicks on an avatar to view the info, a few are like 250 KB to 400 KB in reality, although seen at just a big thumbnail.

:)

[mark123]

Tables-based may not be neccessary, but they are still completely functional too.Tables based layout was deprecated in 1999. If your not up on something like that then what else is missing, is the first question that pops into my head. Some people don't care though. Lots of folks are happy to accept the mediocre.

Just heart Matt Cutts on a video explaining that tables is not really going to be a penalizer for SEO or SERP purposes.

So either way is fine. Although if greater flexibility is desired, one may need to leave tables by the wayside. But I have seen tables sites leave CSS sites by the wayside too, when it comes to rankings.SEO and layout have little to do with each other but semantic markup will lighten your page, making it quicker to load and more enjoyable to the "want it now" society we live in. SEO only gets people there, load time and style keeps people coming back.

Guess it just boils down to a matter of taste and need.I suppose but when it's rather simple to deliver a corrected site why not?

The gallery images did not seem exceedingly big being near 60Kb apiece. But after you mentioned the size, it was at least evident that the home page little images were fairly hefty for their size too. They are not big as far as a home page's total kilobytes goes, but definitely bigger than tiny images need to be. Like what ... 70Kb. ...The gallery thumbnails could have (should have) been compressed to about 6k each at the most.

These are just my opinions and I'll admit I'm a stickler for doing thing properly and adhering to current standards. If you're just handling grandma's photos or sharing some poems with friends this doesn't matter so much but for a professional every little thing should matter.

[mdvaden]

Tables based layout was deprecated in 1999. If your not up on something like that then what else is missing, is the first question that pops into my head. Some people don't care though. Lots of folks are happy to accept the mediocre.
SEO and layout have little to do with each other but semantic markup will lighten your page, making it quicker to load and more enjoyable to the "want it now" society we live in. SEO only gets people there, load time and style keeps people coming back.


There are millions of tables sites on the internet, as are there millions of other kinds. So 1999 is irrelevant. The sites exist, they archive information, and its Google's job (and other's) to deal with that which is etched in stone. It will take decades for any kind of real transition of the original content of the web.

Unless you are using a dinosaur of a computer, the bandwidth and computer CPU speed these days makes that inconsequential.

There are still a few folks on dial up and DSL, but with high speed cable and FIOS, most folks would hardly notice the difference in a few of tenths of a second.

I find that some folks concerned over a 1/10 of a second or two, may get in a position to starve sites of nice photographic content with speed being the goal.

If someone is doing a brand new site, they can look forward and pick the most streamlined option like you mentioned.

But looking backwards, hardware speed still negates most worries about old code style. And if someone finds an old template they like, it still seems like a minor matter.


I suppose but when it's rather simple to deliver a corrected site why not?
The gallery thumbnails could have (should have) been compressed to about 6k each at the most.


You are reiterating what I wrote. That's why I wrote 5 (for 5KB) in my earlier reply. Towards the 5 KB end for the gallery thumbnails, and the 20-ish for the home page.

[mark123]

There are millions of tables sites on the internet, as are there millions of other kinds. Yes, there are millions of lazy and mediocre coders out there. I don't see your point.

So 1999 is irrelevant. 1999 is the year that the HTML 4.01 Specification stated:Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media. Additionally, when used with graphics, these tables may force users to scroll horizontally to view a table designed on a system with a larger display. To minimize these problems, authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables. How is that irrelevant?

This is not just about 1/10th of a second. It's about doing what's right for as many people as possible. If you've never had to use a non-visual browser then consider yourself very lucky.

The sites exist, they archive information, and its Google's job (and other's) to deal with that which is etched in stone. It will take decades for any kind of real transition of the original content of the web.well it's been 1.1 decades. How many more should I wait?

You are reiterating what I wrote. ...Am I not allowed to agree with you on one thing?

[mdvaden]

1999 is the year that the HTML 4.01 Specification stated:

And 2010 is the year that they are still used by quite a few, and Google etc., still will deal with them.

Basically, if the HTML works and displays, and enough people are using tables, that sets the standard.

In other words, Google and a lot of web professionals need to suck it up and realize that a vast number of sites don't revolve around them, and they have to adapt to millions of sites with code that may not be their preference.

Its sort of like how autos have evolved, but virtually every state has to accomodate the operation of historic vehicles, right down to the emmissions and licensing.

Some people like old cars and working on them too.

[mark123]

... Basically, if the HTML works and displays, and enough people are using tables, that sets the standard. ... HAHA. That's like saying Manowar sets the standard for classically trained musicians. I think you're just taking an opposing position just to argue. It's just silliness.

In this case the layout is broken and needs to be fixed regardless of they standard or lack thereof.

No, no. You win. Second best, it's the new first.

BCFLawnLandscape, I just wanted to add that I, personally, would not deliver a web site in that condition. It's not ready for launch yet.

[mdvaden]

HAHA. That's like saying Manowar sets the standard for classically trained musicians. I think you're just taking an opposing position just to argue. It's just silliness.

In this case the layout is broken and needs to be fixed regardless of they standard or lack thereof.

No, no. You win. Second best, it's the new first.

BCFLawnLandscape, I just wanted to add that I, personally, would not deliver a web site in that condition. It's not ready for launch yet.


The mere fact that so many antiquated sites display shows that the browsers accommodate them. The sites set the standard for which the browser designers all line up in cue to a adapt to. Likewise the browsers accommodate the new codes and styles too.

But the internet is built and established on the older content. We don't want to get confused and think that the new codes and styles are the foundation.

The new stuff continually gets added to the old. That's not even an opinion, just a matter of pure fact.

Actually, I've learned from various business owners that they have received as many if not more compliments sometimes, from what might be deemed "second rate" sites. Sites that are not perfect or look home-made. Some companies did so well with their older less professional looking sites, that they wish they could have reverted in some cases.

It probably just depends on the market. But I've heard feedback from people who are even in the television broadcasting industry who said they can lean toward more primitive looking websites. Their reasoning is that those sites look more authentic. They feel like the sites represent personal service, rather than some perfectionist web designer.

Personally, as long the content is organized, I can live with defects or perfection in a site.

Lack of content is the one thing I see most lacking is sites - even the best designed.

[BCFLawnLandscape]

so between you two arguing like women back and forth and making little sense, you confused me... What makes this site NOT ready to launch? What is it about my site that is 2nd rate? It's obvious you 2 have alot of knowledge on the subject, but dumb it down for us that have no clue what the heck your talking about!

[PeRRuFO]

so between you two arguing like women back and forth and making little sense, you confused me... What makes this site NOT ready to launch? What is it about my site that is 2nd rate? It's obvious you 2 have alot of knowledge on the subject, but dumb it down for us that have no clue what the heck your talking about!

Simple,

Mark123 is 100% RIGHT, if millions of people use tables as a layout that doesn't mean that is correct.
A professional web designer won't ever build layouts under tables, stick to the standards and you will definitely see a huge difference comparing to some old and wrong manners.

[mdvaden]

Simple,

Mark123 is 100% RIGHT, if millions of people use tables as a layout that doesn't mean that is correct.
A professional web designer won't ever build layouts under tables, stick to the standards and you will definitely see a huge difference comparing to some old and wrong manners.


I think the perfectionists need to cork the hole under their nose sometimes with a big Costco polish dog and enjoy a mouth full of calories.

And forget that not everybody has to eat nutritional food all the time.

Similar comparison. Healthy food may be best, but people are going to make food out of a lot of stuff.

LINK > Matt Cutts on Youtube - Tables vs. CSS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_GZwoC2uQ)

Just one more professional commentary about tables.

Of course tables are often not the most streamlined, but they remain all the same.

We have to live in the real world here folks. Tables may take slightly longer for Google or a browser to spider or read. But THAT slightly longer is happening at the speed by which electricity travels. Nearly the blink of an eye.

[PeRRuFO]

The video only talks about SEO for tables in google, I said "A professional web designer won't ever build layouts under tables"

Having an optimized SEO site it's not everything, of course everybody can run but with the right technique everybody can run FASTER.

Tables existed in HTML for one reason: To display tabular data. That's it.

http://www.chromaticsites.com/blog/13-reasons-why-css-is-superior-to-tables-in-website-design/
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/
http://www.decloak.com/dev/csstables/css_tables_01.aspx
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css
http://www.zimbio.com/SEO+Tools+and+Company/articles/111/Top+10+Reasons+CSS+Better+HTML+Tables
http://www.webdesign.org/html-and-css/articles/7-reasons-why-css-is-better-than-html-tables.17946.html

Like these there are dozens of samples. it is up to you to decide what is the way you would like to take in your site.

Cheers.

[mdvaden]

The video only talks about SEO for tables in google, I said "A professional web designer won't ever build layouts under tables"

Having an optimized SEO site it's not everything, of course everybody can run but with the right technique everybody can run FASTER.



Cheers.


Here is a related question ...

If approached by someone with 100 pages on their site built in tables, with a mild budget, would they just skip further development, or just do additions in non-table layout?

If they are "designers" they may well just do from-scratch work.

I think what we will see down the road, is that the sites with the least and most primitive content from the last decade, are the easiest and cheapest to upgrade. And the sites heavily laden with content and pages by the reams will simply be unaffordable or impractical to upgrade.

In my case, I may upgrade my 5 highest ranking pages, one of them the home page. On the other hands, my home page code is still relatively small with minimal table code.

Earlier this week, I was looking at the page source for 3 tree services locally, with non-table layouts, and their page code was like 4 times longer.

So no crisis the way I see it. But in maybe a month, 6 months, a year, I'll probably tweak to a non-table layout beginning with the home page, then 3 or 4 others.