New website - testing please

[Turgenev]

Heh. I figured they were probably just typing errors. I'm notorious for doing things like that in the process of writing mark-up and css and then pull my hair out trying to find them. Certainly not my specialty, though, so I'm glad there's someone here that can help our man Torstan out with these things better than I'd be able to.

The other thing to take into account with validation is errors often have a cascading effect. It might say there are 11 errors, but when you go into the code and fix a couple mistakes at the top of the code and then re-validate, it can then pass.

I've done typos in my code in the past and I've scratched my head trying to figure out why a site isn't validating only to look and see that I transposed a couple letters somewhere in the code (for example, typing ahref instead of a href). The http://validator.w3.org/ site is invaluable as a resource.

The top two reasons why a validated site is a good idea are:
* It means the code is correct and will allow better browser cross-platform capability (it will work on more than one type of browser). Sites dedicated to just one type of browser could potentially ignore/alienate future viewers/clients.
* A site will validated code will have an edge against a site with errors in the search engine game. New sites can take a little while to get listed in Google (the regular estimates are anywhere between 3 - 8 months depending on how competitive the topic is). So having a well written site will get you listed quicker and often at higher listings than a non-validated site. Course there are many variables involved in this process so being weak in one area may balance out with a stronger showing in another area.

[Turgenev]

Everything, Turgenev mentioned exists on the Gamer-Printshop.com site as well, didn't mention it, as its been so long since I applied them to the site. I did all that at site creation and pretty much haven't touched the site since (notice those broken links...)

Strange, but once I placed the keyword-optimized pages up, the Robots.txt and the XML file, in 24 hours gamer-printshop.com was at the top of the search engines and have stayed there ever since, with no post-build optimization applied at all.

So its probably wise to do all the TG says, it worked for my site!

Glad to hear it worked for you. That fact that it worked in 24 hours is amazing! That is outstanding results! I wish some of my sites had that turnover rate. The thing about the search engine game is it is best played as a long term one. The longer your site is online, the better your results should become. Time (as in how long your site has been active) is one of the factors that search engines take into account.

I recommend getting webstats for any site so one can see who is visiting, where they are coming, what browsers they are using, what links referred them to one's site, and so on. This info is interesting to see but it also lets you to who is talking about your site (through the referral links). The real good ones will show you what keywords people used to get to your site. You can then use this info to pinpoint your own keywords and your internet marketing strategy.

One of the biggest mistakes people make with their websites is they put them up and then they never add any new content - basically the sites remain static. This can hurt you in search engine results because the search engine might think your site is no longer active (aka alive) and they might start to de-list your site in the ratings. This won't be a problem for torstan's or GP's sites since they will be adding new content as they produce/accept it (as the case may be). I've seen too many business sites that do this.

In this case, I recommend one should always keep their sitemap.xml file up to date with the latest changes (make changes to the date on the pages you've changed) because search engines will pick up on this. Google and Yahoo allow you to make an account there and upload the sitemap.xml file directly tyo them to help your site get indexed quicker/kept up to date.

The other nice thing about the robot.txt file (combined with info from webstats) is if you're getting hit by robots from dubious sites, you can ban those robots from accessing your site.

I've only touch the tip of the iceberg about SEO. I'm available for consultations (when I'm not mapping or writing xHTML). That's enough SEO stuff from me. I've got some mapping to do.

[torstan]

Well that will certainly keep me going for now I have some reading up to do about css and html errors.

[Turgenev]

Well that will certainly keep me going for now I have some reading up to do about css and html errors.

To give you a head's up... try the following code after your title tag and then see how things validate.

<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" />

[JoeyD473]

I am using Opera and it appear to work correctly.

[Greason Wolfe]

The other thing to take into account with validation is errors often have a cascading effect. It might say there are 11 errors, but when you go into the code and fix a couple mistakes at the top of the code and then re-validate, it can then pass.

I've done typos in my code in the past and I've scratched my head trying to figure out why a site isn't validating only to look and see that I transposed a couple letters somewhere in the code (for example, typing ahref instead of a href). The http://validator.w3.org/ site is invaluable as a resource.

No argument from me on that count. More often than not, that is exactly the case with my code as well. One misidentified ID, one set of transposed letters, an "=" instead of a ":" and you end up with a dozen errors, but that one little fix is all it takes. The validator at w3c is my friend and savior, oh yes it is.

Still, being that it is your area of expertise and my area of hobby, I'll defer to you when it comes to helping Torstan tweak out his sight. Better to get it right from someone more in the know than someone who might just be guessing.

GW

[altasilvapuer]

Hi. So I've finally built myself a website that can be found here:
http://www.fantasticmaps.com/

Also, I need a logo that goes with the name. So far I am drawing a blank!

For me, I would look through all of my maps, and try to identify something that's distinctly "you" in them - your signature, so to speak. Build the logo from that. For instance, say your signature is your use of subtle and slightly understated labeling that blends with the picture well while still being defined (something I actually see in larger your maps quite well, especially in Dreeston and St. George's island). Or maybe if you want to highlight more of your battle-style maps, you could use a small piece of one of them.

Then I'd take said small piece and likely lay it in the titlebar opposite the page title.

At least, that's what I see in my head. I usually build things like this based on what's in my head, and then start seeing the things that actually work and end up changing everything.

-asp

[Steel General]

CSS - A wonderful tool that just makes my teeth ache for some reason.

[ravells]

<sniff> no link to the Cartographers' Guild? <cries>

Seriously, very slick looking website! All the links I clicked worked fine. Hey, I didn't know that you did Traveller stuff!

[torstan]

Thanks for the comments everyone. SG - why does css make your teeth ache?

No links to anyone yet - though I certainly need to fix that. Thanks for the nudge!

It seems to be getting attention already - two people have got in touch through the site and it only went up on Sunday.

As for Traveller, yes I did the area maps for Prison Planet and a couple of deckplans for Warships of Babylon 5 - along with Turgenev. I should really put some of them up on the site.

@asp: Thanks for the suggestion - that's a good idea. I've been wondering about the different possible logos, and whether they confine you to a particular genre, but I think there's actually enough fantasy map work to go around, so I might just go with something unashamedly fantasy-esque. No great rush right now.